Full page fax print - India Environment Portal
Full page fax print - India Environment Portal
Full page fax print - India Environment Portal
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Management Effectiveness Evaluation<br />
(MEE) of PA Network in <strong>India</strong><br />
SITE REPORT
Contents<br />
Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) of PA Network in <strong>India</strong>:<br />
An Overview ..............................................................................................................................<br />
Results at a Glance ............................................................................................................. i-xii<br />
Evaluation Reports ....................................................................................................................<br />
1. Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat) .................................................................................... 1-12<br />
2. Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa) ........................................................................ 13-24<br />
3. Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka) .......................................................................... 25-36<br />
4. Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand) ................................................................................. 37-48<br />
5. Great Himalayan National Park (HP) .............................................................................. 49-61<br />
6. Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu) ..................................................................... 63-74<br />
7. Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal) ................................................................... 75-85<br />
8. Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur) ........................................................................... 87-97<br />
9. Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan) ..............................................................................99-110<br />
10. Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim) ................................................................ 111-122<br />
11. Kishtwar National Park (J&K) .................................................................................... 123-135<br />
12. Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP) ........................................................................ 137-147<br />
13. Madhav National Park (MP) ...................................................................................... 149-160<br />
14. Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal) .......................................................... 161-172<br />
15. Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N) ..................................................................... 173-183<br />
16. Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand) ............................................................... 185-199<br />
17. Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu) ...................................................................... 201-211<br />
18. National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP) ................................................................ 213-224<br />
19. Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra) ..................................................................... 225-236<br />
20. Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya) ................................................................... 237-248<br />
21. Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary ( Andhra Pradesh) ...................................................... 249-259<br />
22. Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam) ..................................................................................... 261-272<br />
23. Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra) .............................................................. 273-283<br />
24. Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura) ...................................................................... 285-299<br />
25. Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)............................................... 301-311<br />
26. Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh) .............................................................. 313-325<br />
27. Sultanpur National Park (Haryana) ........................................................................... 327-339<br />
28. Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa) ...................................................................... 341-351<br />
29. Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh) ................................................................... 353-363<br />
30. Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala) ........................................................................ 365-375<br />
Annexure-I: Assessment Criteria for Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) of<br />
PA Network in <strong>India</strong> - Site Level .................................................. 376-384<br />
i |
Results at a Glance<br />
S. No.<br />
1.<br />
2.<br />
3.<br />
4.<br />
5.<br />
6.<br />
7.<br />
8.<br />
9.<br />
10.<br />
11.<br />
12.<br />
13.<br />
14.<br />
15.<br />
16.<br />
17.<br />
18.<br />
19.<br />
20.<br />
21.<br />
22.<br />
23.<br />
24.<br />
25.<br />
26.<br />
27.<br />
28.<br />
29.<br />
Name of National Park<br />
Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />
Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />
Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />
Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />
Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />
Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />
Madhav National Park (MP)<br />
Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />
Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />
Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary ( Andhra Pradesh)<br />
Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />
Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />
Score (%)<br />
61<br />
70<br />
62<br />
53<br />
78<br />
60<br />
77<br />
74<br />
76<br />
72<br />
48<br />
60<br />
56<br />
64<br />
69<br />
43<br />
71<br />
54<br />
57<br />
72<br />
46<br />
76<br />
69<br />
62<br />
71<br />
52<br />
57<br />
58<br />
52<br />
30.<br />
Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />
59<br />
Results at a Glance<br />
i |
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
Results at a Glance<br />
Very Good Good Satisfactory<br />
78 77 76 76 74 72 72 71 71 70 69 69<br />
64 62 62 61 60 60 59 58 57 57 56 54 53 52 52<br />
48<br />
46<br />
43<br />
Keoladeo NP<br />
Keibul Lamjao NP (Manipur)<br />
Nongkhyllem NP (Meghalaya)<br />
Khangchendzonga NP<br />
Mudumalai NP (Tamil Nadu)<br />
Sessa Orchid WLS<br />
Bhitarkarnika WLS<br />
Mahatma Gandhi NP (A& N)<br />
Sanjay Gandhi NP<br />
Mahananda WLS<br />
Sepahijala WLS<br />
Dandeli WLS (Karnataka)<br />
Barda WLS<br />
Kuno-Palpur WLS<br />
Gulf of Mannar NP (Tamil Nadu)<br />
Wayanad WLS (Kerala)<br />
Sunebeda WLS<br />
Sultanpur NP (Haryana)<br />
Navegaon NP<br />
Madhav NP<br />
National Chambal WLS<br />
Govind NP & WLS<br />
Udanti WLS<br />
Soheldev (Sohelwa) WLS<br />
Kistwar National Park<br />
Papikonda WLS ( Andhra Pradesh)<br />
Mahauadar WLS (Jharkhand)<br />
PA Name<br />
Jaldapara WLS<br />
GHNP, Sainj & Tirthan WLS<br />
Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
Overall MEE Score<br />
| ii
Results at a Glance<br />
iii |
| iv<br />
Results at a Glance
Results at a Glance<br />
v |
| vi<br />
Results at a Glance
Results at a Glance<br />
vii |
| viii<br />
Results at a Glance
Results at a Glance<br />
ix |
| x<br />
Results at a Glance
Results at a Glance<br />
xi |
| xii<br />
Results at a Glance
1. Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />
Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />
1 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
Importance of the area high lighted in the<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
management plan ,how ever, value as alternate<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
home for Lion ,not assessed properly and<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
effective monitoring mechanism not in place.<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
Threats recognized in the M.P. but some not<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
quantified i.e. mining in the vicinity ,pollution due<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
to industries, adverse impact of Maldharies on the<br />
Fair ü<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
ecosystem , goat/ sheep grazing etc.<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
There are 62 nesses within the sanctuary having<br />
Poor ü<br />
interference.<br />
human population of over 700 families, twenty<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
five villages in the periphery and within zone of<br />
Fair<br />
interference.<br />
influence there are major industries [chapter 11<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
Ecological and Socio - Economic study of Barda].<br />
Good<br />
interference.<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
Very good<br />
interference.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />
| 2
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Site identified properly and zonatieti shown in<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
plan but zonation within not effective.<br />
Fair ü<br />
categorized.<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
Plan drafted by Shri Odedra, is comprehensive<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
and efforts laudable considering that it is first duly<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive.<br />
approved plan.<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
Plan is still valid ;as planned Biodiversity and<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
socio-economic studies of Maldharies have been<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
carried out by GEER .<br />
Fair<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good ü<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />
3 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
Flora! values better safe guarded than potential<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
values of wild mammalian browsers and grazers,<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
scrub land frugivorous birds, reptiles, etc.<br />
Fair ü<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
There is no institutional mechanism for such<br />
Poor ü<br />
participation in planning.<br />
consultations , even statutory requirement of<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
having Hon. Warden and Advisory committee [<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
Section 33- B] not in place.<br />
Good<br />
processes.<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
Very good<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
restoration.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
Water conservation measures are note worthy<br />
and have given excellent results ; Lantana<br />
invasion control measures in place but attention<br />
need also be focused on Acacia Senegal<br />
proliferation. Soil Conservation need priority .<br />
How ever, basic cause of habitat damage need<br />
be controlled through relocation of Maldharies at<br />
least on periphery is pre requisite.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />
| 4
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
Fair<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
There are on going Cheetal reintroduction<br />
attempts , may give priority to browser species<br />
like Sambhar and augment suitable antelopes.<br />
But such an activity to be preceded by<br />
restrictions on domestic animals that have<br />
dominated habitat. Aim of Lion reintroduction<br />
needs serious rethinking in view of observations<br />
in the report by GEER foundation.<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy. Poor ü Application of guidelines regards "Eco sensitive<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
areas" need be examined after critical appraisal<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
of threats due to industries in close proximity;<br />
Good<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
impacts of habitations within and close to<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
sanctuary have been appreciated but restrictions<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
under section 27 not implemented rigorously.<br />
Biomass consumed by domestic cattle is<br />
Very good<br />
transformed into Milk / milk products .cow dung<br />
and is exported out ( at least dung need be<br />
recycled.).Pol icy decision on restrictions \<br />
relocation urgently called for.<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Relationship between human population and<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
is detrimental to habitat, present management<br />
wilderness values, within PAs is not symbiotic but<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
thus does not see "Conflicts" within PA. Relations<br />
Good<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
in fringe areas are cordial.<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />
5 |
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
PA occupies central position in the landscape<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
and protects watershed .<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Fair<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
Additional positions indicated in the Management<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
Plan not yet provided , however available<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
personnel utilized optimally.<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated .<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />
| 6
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
are never released in time.<br />
Poor<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released<br />
in time.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
Main thrust is on moisture conservation ,<br />
rehabilitation of habitat and remote sensing data<br />
does indicate habitat recovery. Resettlement yet<br />
to become core activity.<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
GEER foundation has prov ided much needed<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
technical inputs , there is little people support for<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
population estimation exercises .<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good ü<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />
7 |
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
There are experienced field workers and staff<br />
Poor<br />
in the site.<br />
receives refresher trainings for time to time, PA<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
manager does not consider lack of trained staff<br />
Fair ü<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
as limitation.<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
Poor<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
Other than Eco development activities in<br />
Poor ü<br />
management.<br />
periphery which gets good response ,public<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
participation is limited and opportunistic.<br />
Fair<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
Good<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />
management.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />
| 8
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
Democratic institutions are well established<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
institution of Lokayukta is in place . The senior<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
Manager opines that the management is alert<br />
and responsive.<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
Substantial issues addressed by the<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
management.<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Fair<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
Gujarat Bio diversity strategy and action plan<br />
Poor ü<br />
publicly available.<br />
is in place ; GEER foundation has also<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
published good data .Web site being made<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
available but management issues are not<br />
Fair<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
generally debated.<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of Very good<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />
9 |
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant<br />
protected area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Tourism potentials of Kileshwar temple,<br />
Ghumali historical sites irrigation dams utilized<br />
but wild interpretation /education potentials of<br />
the PA are not fully developed , Nature camps<br />
be held at number of places including<br />
Satvirda. Maharaja Khengar's contribution to<br />
wild life conservation being note worthy ,<br />
"Khengar willa" could be a focal point for<br />
nature interpretation.<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
Population estimation exercises for herbivores<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
and carnivores are carried out regularly ;<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
vegetation monitoring on scientific lines<br />
Fair<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
recommended. F.S.I.'s remote sensing tree<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
cover monitoring being used. GEER<br />
Good ü<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
foundation has brought out comprehensive<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
data base as a bench mark.<br />
reporting of management related trends Very good<br />
undertaken.<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of<br />
infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
Present scenario is considered adequate.<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />
| 10
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Status of endangered floral components is<br />
improving. As habitat recovery is good , over<br />
all position is stable<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
Grazing is leading to " biotic" climax that has<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
preponderance of Acacia Senegal<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
jeopardizing natives to some extent but<br />
Fair ü<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
riparian zones have improved. Typical<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
elements of scrub grass lands need be<br />
Good<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
nurtured. Some communities will certainly be<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
sustained.<br />
Very good<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
Not all the threats abated or minimized.<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />
11 |
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
Porbunder, Ranavav get sustained potable<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
water supply form Pas but this contribution<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
need be high lighted. Eco development<br />
Fair ü<br />
supportive.<br />
inputs have helped in getting support.<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
GEER Foundation \Gujarat Forest Dept.<br />
publication high lights interesting history,<br />
Ghumat was an ancient capital. Maldharis<br />
have unique and rich culture that needs<br />
show casing. Khengar whilla ,can be a focal<br />
point to remember contribution of erstwhile<br />
rulers of this area.<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 16<br />
2. Planning 9 10 100 63<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 30<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 33<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 24<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 34<br />
Total 32 330 200<br />
Overall Score<br />
61%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />
| 12
2. Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
13 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
Poor<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
assessed.<br />
Poor<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good ü<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Poor<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Fair ü<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
| 14
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
categorized.<br />
Fair<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
Poor<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good ü<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
15 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Poor<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Fair<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good ü<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
participation in planning.<br />
Poor<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
| 16
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for<br />
Fair<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
17 |
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Poor<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Fair<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
| 18
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
are never released in time.<br />
Poor<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
management of the site.<br />
Poor<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good ü<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
19 |
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
in the site.<br />
Poor<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair ü<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
Poor<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
| 20
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
complaints.<br />
Poor<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Fair<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good ü<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
21 |
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance Good ü<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Very good<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
Poor<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good ü<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
| 22
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Good ü<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Very good<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Poor<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Fair<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
have enhanced.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
23 |
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
hostile.<br />
Poor<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
Poor<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Fair<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is Good ü<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Very good<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 20<br />
2. Planning 9 10 100 75<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 30<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 30<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 32.5<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 45<br />
Total 32 330 232.5<br />
Overall Score<br />
70%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
| 24
3. Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />
Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />
25 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
Poor<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
assessed.<br />
Poor<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good ü<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Poor<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Fair ü<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />
| 26
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
categorized.<br />
Fair<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
Poor<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good ü<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />
27 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Poor<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
participation in planning.<br />
Poor<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good ü<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />
| 28
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for<br />
Fair<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
Not applicable<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />
29 |
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
Being considered for Biosphere Reserve,<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
encompassing Goa and Maharashtra states’<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
PAs.<br />
Fair<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />
| 30
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
are never released in time.<br />
Poor<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority ac tion and some funds released Fair ü<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
management of the site.<br />
Poor ü<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />
31 |
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Out of 60 Beat Guards, 38 positions are vacant.<br />
Poor ü<br />
in the site.<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
Poor<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />
| 32
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
complaints.<br />
Poor<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no i nformation on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Fair<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good ü<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />
33 |
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair ü<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance Good<br />
PA values.<br />
Al l visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Very good<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
Poor<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />
| 34
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Not monitored at regular intervals.<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Poor<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Fair<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
have enhanced.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />
35 |
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
hostile.<br />
Poor<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
Poor<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Fair<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is Good ü<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Very good<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 17.5<br />
2. Planning 9 10 90 65<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 25<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 25<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 25<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 40<br />
Total 32 320 197.5<br />
Overall Score<br />
62%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />
| 36
4. Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />
Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />
37 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
The values are well documented &assessed but<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
monitoring needs lot of improvement.<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
assessed.<br />
Poor<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good ü<br />
The threats are well documented and assessed.<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
The site has high grazing pressure from nearly<br />
Poor ü<br />
interference.<br />
80000 sheeps & goats during May to September<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
not only from the 42 villages falling in buffer area<br />
Fair<br />
interference.<br />
of these PAs but some also from far off Mori &<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
Sandra areas. Gujar buffalo herds from Rajaji<br />
Good<br />
interference.<br />
NP/DDun FD & even from Shivalik Forest<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
Division of U.P. also migrate into these PAs<br />
interference.<br />
during above period. There are nearly fifty Gujjar<br />
Deras all over the PAs. Extraction of medicinal<br />
plants, grazing by local cattle and fuel wood and<br />
timber collection by local people is also<br />
significant. The final notification of the National<br />
Park has yet not been issued. Though, intention<br />
notification had been issued in 1990. Govind<br />
WLS out of which Govind NP has been carved<br />
Very good<br />
out was notified in 1955 but due to Supreme<br />
Court judgments rights of timber and other forest<br />
produce have been stopped but there is no<br />
alternative source of these demands as a result<br />
there is constant conflict. A proposal to<br />
redelineate the boundaries of WLS and part of<br />
NP was sent to GoI but the same has been<br />
turned down. The antagonism of local people<br />
continues due to which final notification is not<br />
coming.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />
| 38
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
The entire 472 km 2 of Govind NP has been<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
designated as core zone & the Govind WLs with<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
an area of 486 km 2 has been designated as<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
buffer zone. Both the PAs are treated as ecorestoration<br />
zone due to heavy biotic pressure.<br />
Good ü<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
Some 6 sites have been designated as tourism<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
zone. 42 villages with in Govind WLs & 17<br />
Very good<br />
villages with in 5km from PA boundary have been<br />
included in Eco development zone.<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
There is a combined management plan for<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
Govind NP & WLS which has been prepared in<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive.<br />
1999-2000& will be operati ve till 2008-09. This is<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
the first MP and would need a interim review &<br />
Good ü<br />
Plan.<br />
updating at once.<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />
participatory process.<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
The current Management plan is the first one and<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
has not been revised or updated so far.<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
Because of difficult geographic & climatic<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
conditions the site specially the core area of NP<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
does safe guard the high biodiversity values of<br />
Fair ü<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
flora & fauna but high biotic pressure needs to be<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
reduced.<br />
Good<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
Very good<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />
39 |
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
Except the eco-development and tourism<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
activities there is little participation of<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü stakeholders in planning.<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
Habitat restoration programmes such as<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
checking soil erosion, assisted natural<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
regeneration of Oaks, Fodder development & fire<br />
protection have been planned in the<br />
restoration.<br />
management plan & the actual work is done<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
based on availability of funds but monitoring<br />
Good ü<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
needs more attention.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />
No introduction ever planned or done.<br />
Poor _<br />
adhoc.<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair _<br />
programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Good _<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good _<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Though long range & short range patrolling has<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
been planned recently as a anti poaching<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strategy but due to lack of sufficient man power &<br />
Good ü<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
training in mountaineering & other high attitude<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
traits the protection strategy is still weak. There is<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
no strategy to monitor the activities of shepherds<br />
Very good<br />
& Gujars who visit interior parts of the PA &<br />
roam freely during May to September.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />
| 40
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
The human wildlife conflicts are mainly due to<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
black bear, occasional cattle lifting by leopards in<br />
crop raiding by wild boar, mauling by Himalayan<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
the villages & killing of sheeps & goats in high<br />
Good<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
altitude pastures by snow leopard, Brown bear &<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
Leopard. For cases taking place in villages<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
compensation is paid in case of killing & injuring<br />
Very good<br />
of humans & killing of cattle but no compensation<br />
is paid when killing takes place inside PA.<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
There is hardly any integration into wider<br />
Poor ü<br />
landscape.<br />
ecological network which exists in neighboring<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
Tons FD and Shimla wildlife Division of H.P.<br />
Fair<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Some preliminary discussion was made by WLW<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
with DFO Shimla WL Division recently. This<br />
Good<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
needs to be taken further.<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
Very good<br />
landscape.<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
Though all available personnel are explicitly<br />
allocated for PA Management but due to<br />
shortage to sanctioned posts( all 6 posts of<br />
Foresters vacant), higher average age of frontline<br />
staff, lack of training & equipment for high altitude<br />
trekking & lack of resources for such difficult &<br />
climatically harsh area their systematic linkage to<br />
management objectives is not possible.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />
41 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
There is only one vehicle with Wildlife Warden<br />
Purola which is enough as there are hardly any<br />
motor roads inside PA. Wireless sets are<br />
available at all important locations and are in<br />
working order. Only few firearms are available<br />
with frontline staff. Large number of buildings<br />
including field accommodation, office buildings of<br />
RFOs & FRH are very old & need renovation/<br />
replacement.<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
are never released in time.<br />
Poor<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released<br />
in time.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
The total allocation of funds for work component<br />
both in Govind NP & WLS & funds provided by<br />
Centrally sponsored scheme as against the total<br />
fund allocation during last 5 years is as under.<br />
Year Total Allocation Allocation under<br />
CSS<br />
% (sd)<br />
2001-02 112.35 7.00 6<br />
2002-03 135.38 14.10 10<br />
2003-04 76.79 11.50 7<br />
2004-05 44.16 13.80 31<br />
2005-06 122.52 20.50 17<br />
Note: In 2001-02 and 2002-03 major<br />
allocation was under biodiversity component of<br />
World Bank aided forestry project. Most of the<br />
fund were used for creation/renovation of fixed<br />
assets like road, bridges, buildings etc. which is<br />
necessary due to frequent damages done by<br />
cloud bursts/heavy rains and fragile geology of<br />
the area. Very little funds were used for habitat<br />
improvement and anti-poaching activities.<br />
Release of funds by State Govt. were not timely<br />
in most of the years. The following special points<br />
are brought out.<br />
1. There has been great inconsistency in<br />
availability of funds both from Govt. of <strong>India</strong> and<br />
from State Govt.<br />
2. Higher allocation in 2005-06 is due to<br />
availability of funds from 12 th Finance<br />
Commission and State Tourism Department.<br />
3. The MEE is based on availability of funds<br />
from all sources and not from GOI alone.<br />
Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />
| 42
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
There was no NGO support available to these<br />
Poor ü<br />
management of the site.<br />
PAs.<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
Fair<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Very good<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
The resource both human & financial is<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü inadequate considering the vast areas, difficult<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
geographical terrain, tough climatic conditions,<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks.<br />
number of villages requiring eco-development &<br />
the presence of large number of<br />
Very good<br />
rare/endangered species of flora & fauna & the<br />
high level of biotic pressures.<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
None is trained in regular wildlife course. ROs &<br />
Poor<br />
in the site.<br />
ü Fgds. got two week refresher training at Corbett<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
Wildlife Tanning Centre Kalagarh.<br />
Fair<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />
43 |
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
The staff performance management of available<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
staff is linked to achievement of management<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
objectives.<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
Public participation is limited to ecodevelopment,<br />
tourism management & man<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
power availability for various works<br />
Fair ü<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
undertaken in PAs. Due to non allocation of<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
funds for eco-development this activity is<br />
Good<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
generally neglected.<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />
management.<br />
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
The complaints are routinely addressed<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
without much of follow up.<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />
| 44
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
All the 42 villages within PAs & many more<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
outside PAs are resource dependant on PAs.<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
In the absence of final notification of NP & non<br />
Fair ü<br />
management.<br />
settlement of rights in the WLS, there is hardly<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
any restriction on resource use. During World<br />
Good<br />
by PA management.<br />
Bank aided Forestry project (1998-2003) ecodevelopment<br />
committees were formed with<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
adequate representation of women but after<br />
Very good<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
project withdrawal the committees are now<br />
almost defunct.<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
assets.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
The management plan contains adequate<br />
information but hardly any public person other<br />
than researchers have access to it. The<br />
brochure of the PAs has limited information<br />
mostly of visitor interest which is publicly<br />
available .It would be desirable to put<br />
Management Plan in district public library.<br />
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant<br />
protected area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
These is enormous tourist potential such as:<br />
‣ Har-ki-Dun and Changsil treks.<br />
‣ Mountaineering to Swargarohini,<br />
Kedarkantha and black peaks.<br />
‣ Ruinsiara valley trek.<br />
Good number of visitors go to these places in<br />
summer and rainy season. Information centre<br />
have been set up at Himari, Naitwar and<br />
Sankari. The website of Govind NP & WLS is<br />
under preparation. The Forest Rest Houses<br />
on trek routes are reasonably good and in<br />
great demand. Registration of Guides and<br />
porters has been done. Tented<br />
accommodation in FRH compounds are also<br />
proposed.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />
45 |
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
This is for the first time that any evaluation at<br />
Poor ü<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
Govt. of <strong>India</strong> level has been undertaken.<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
Some monitoring during World Bank aided<br />
Fair<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
project was also undertaken. There is no<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
systematic evaluation for management related<br />
Good<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
trends.<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends Very good<br />
undertaken.<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The list of infrastructures is provided in the<br />
Management Plan & the maintenance<br />
schedule is made year wise &inspected by<br />
higher officers but the fund availability is<br />
always uncertain.<br />
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable. Fair ü<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
Reliable estimations of population of<br />
threatened/engaged species is difficult due<br />
to difficult terrain & limited & untrained<br />
manpower. However rough estimates are<br />
prepared every year for all important species<br />
which may not be reliable due to unscientific<br />
methods that are employed for preparation<br />
of such estimates.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />
| 46
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
Due to heavy grazing pressure & absence of<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
regular monitoring it is difficult to assess the<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
biological community structure.<br />
Fair ü<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
Due to non-issuance of final notification of<br />
Poor ü<br />
have enhanced.<br />
NP & non settlement of rights in PAs the<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
heavy biotic pressure has remained to be<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
abated.<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Due to unique & scenic beauty & presence<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
of large species of flowering plants &<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü enchanting snow peaks at close quarters,<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
the visitor expectation are generally fulfilled.<br />
The trekking to Harkidoon offers most<br />
Very good<br />
satisfying experience in the clean & beautiful<br />
environment.<br />
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
Due to non-settlement of rights the<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
neighbouring and adjacent communities are<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
generally non supportive of PA<br />
Fair ü<br />
supportive.<br />
Management.<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />
47 |
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The Jaunsar-Babar cultural heritage is<br />
unique which has so far survived but there<br />
are no special efforts by PA Management to<br />
protect the same except organizing local folk<br />
dances as part of extension program.<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 17.50<br />
2. Planning 10 10 90 52.50<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 25.00<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 25.00<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 20.00<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 30.00<br />
Total 33 320 170<br />
Overall Score<br />
53%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />
| 48
5. Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
49 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
This is one cluster of PAs where values of site<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
have been well documented, assessed and<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
monitored. This exercise was largely done during<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
FREE Project and later on follow up was done<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
due to personal interest taken by Sri Sanjeeva<br />
Good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Pandey the out going Director who was at the<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
helm of affairs for long time.<br />
Very good ü<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
The threats to the site values has been<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
systematically identified assessed in the<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
management plan and after the extensive<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
research input in FREE Project they have further<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
been fine tuned in the revised/updated<br />
Good<br />
assessed.<br />
Management Plan.<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
Very good ü<br />
assessed.<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
Though final notification of NP has been issued<br />
Poor<br />
interference.<br />
after settlement of rights and payment of<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
substantial compensation but grazing by<br />
Fair ü<br />
interference.<br />
shepherds has not stopped completely. Many<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
herds of goats/sheeps use the NP for transit. In<br />
Good<br />
interference.<br />
Jiwanal Valley of the NP rights of some villagers<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
have not been settled as their rights were not<br />
interference.<br />
recorded in revenue records, instead rights of the<br />
then king who ruled these villages are recorded.<br />
Parwati catchment of the NP is still not under the<br />
Very good<br />
management of Director, GHNP and grazing by<br />
large herds of sheep and goats continues.<br />
Collection of medicinal herbs has also not been<br />
stopped completely. Efforts are being made in<br />
right direction.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
| 50
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
After correctly identifying the site systematic<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
categorization with proper zones has been done.<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
Area where rights could not be purchased and<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
villagers could not be relocated has been<br />
Good<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
separately designated as Sainj Sanctuary. The<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
maximum biotic pressure on the NP was from<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
western boundary side which has been<br />
Very good ü designated as eco development zone where<br />
necessary efforts are being done to contain the<br />
pressure.<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
GHNP along with Tirthan and Sainj WLSs and<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
Ecodevelopment zone have comprehensive<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive.<br />
management plans for each PA which have been<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
up dated recently on the basis of inputs got from<br />
Good<br />
Plan.<br />
World Bank aided conservation of biodiversity<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
project and the experiences gained in<br />
Management Plan prepared through a Very good ü ecodevelopment process.<br />
participatory process.<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
The Management Plan has been updated<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
recently with inputs from COB project and MP for<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
all 3 PAs is now operative from 2005 to 2010.<br />
Fair<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
51 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
Ground work to safeguard the biodiversity values<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
of all the 3 PAs has been done except securing<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
the management of the portion of NP falling in<br />
Fair<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Parvati Valley. The enforcement part needs to be<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
strengthened further.<br />
Good ü<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
Very good<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
Stakeholder participation in planning process<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
started in the COB project (1994-99). In the main<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
ecodevelopment component of the project an<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
area of 5 km. from the Western periphery of<br />
Good<br />
processes.<br />
GHNP was notified as Eco-zone with an area of<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically Very good ü 326.6 km 2 including 61 km 2 of Tirthan WLS. The<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
zone comprised of 160 villages with 2200<br />
households and 14000 human population. After<br />
the final notification of GHNP was issued in 1999<br />
the participatory management process began<br />
and in 2000 a community based organization<br />
SAHARA (Society for Advancement of Hill and<br />
Rural Areas) was formed. Women Savings and<br />
Credit Groups (WSCGS) covering all forest<br />
dependent households were formed and<br />
financially strengthened with the help of the wage<br />
earnings from various habitat development<br />
activities of the PAs and by securing funds from<br />
Got. of <strong>India</strong> for two major medicinal plant<br />
propagation projects. The WSCGS has good<br />
sums of revolving funds with them. The aim is to<br />
make the GHNP management as 'facilitator' of<br />
community based organization involving user<br />
Groups, local NGOs, Mahila Mandals, Yuvak<br />
Mandals, Ward Development Committees and<br />
panchayats. GHNP management selected 12<br />
women from ecozone and trained them as Group<br />
Organizers to work in the villages. They have<br />
been given training in appropriate trades/<br />
subjects. They are now identifying the poor<br />
households and organizing them into small<br />
Women Saving and Credit Groups (WSCGS). 92<br />
WSCGs have been formed covering about 980<br />
women of poor HHs. Their collective savings in<br />
local banks till 2004 was 8 lakh Rupees out of<br />
which they have done alternative income<br />
generation activities and earned more than Rs.<br />
32 lakhs.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
| 52
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
restoration.<br />
Fair<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
GHNP represents one of the few areas of some<br />
natural flora and fauna in the temperate<br />
subalpine and alpine zone of the western<br />
Himalayas, an area of high species, diversity. It is<br />
large enough with the adjacent sanctuaries of<br />
Rupibhawa, Sainj, Tirthan and Kanawar and Pin<br />
Valley NP to maintain viable populations of all<br />
plants and animal species characteristic of these<br />
zones and through remoteness and<br />
inaccessibility its protection should be easier than<br />
other areas of similar category. In global context<br />
GHNP stands out as an important conservation<br />
area in the North Western Himalayas<br />
(Biogeographic zone-2A) with global<br />
conservation significance. It is heartening to note<br />
that habitat restoration programmes in this<br />
important PA cluster are being systematically<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />
adhoc.<br />
Poor -<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair -<br />
programmes.<br />
No reintroduction ever done.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Good -<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good -<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
The best protection strategy for such a site is<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
through involvement of local people who exert<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
pressure on the PA and who have hardly any<br />
Good ü<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
alternatives. There is not much of external threat<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very Very good<br />
to the PAs, so this strategy which is the main<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
strength of the management is though slowly but<br />
working well. To deal with law breakers there are<br />
anti-poaching camps, regular patrolling and a<br />
good intelligence network in the villages.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
53 |
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
The human wildlife conflicts in such PAs are<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
local population on forest resources and absence<br />
always acute due to complete dependence of<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
of alternatives. With the rights of people having<br />
Good ü<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
been settled through payment of compensation<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
and formation of WSCGS on a large scale and<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
involvement of local NGO such as SAHARA the<br />
conflicts can now be better addressed.<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
Efforts to create the Greater Himalayan<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
Conservation Authority (GHCA) are being made<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
to integrate this cluster of PAs into a wider<br />
Fair<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
ecological network. GHNP (754.4 km 2 ), its<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
ecozone (265.6 km 2 ) Sainj WLS (61 km 2 ). Tirthan<br />
Good ü<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
WLS (90 km 2 ). The Pin Valley NP (676<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/ Very good<br />
km 2 ),Rupibhawa WLS (738 km 2 ) and Kanawar<br />
landscape.<br />
WLS (61 km 2 ) all totaling to about 2600 km 2 area<br />
in the heart of HP if brought under one<br />
management umbrella will make it an important<br />
conservation area of N-W Himalayas with global<br />
conservation significance.<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
There has always been deficiency in the<br />
sanctioned strength which itself is not enough<br />
looking at the geography and climatic condition of<br />
the PAs. At the moment there are 7 vacancies<br />
(25%) in FGds., 1 in Dy. Ranger (12.5%) and 1 in<br />
Forest Ranger (25%). The main job of field<br />
personnel is patrolling in difficult high altitude<br />
areas. The equipment and training for such<br />
patrolling is inadequate.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
| 54
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Requirement of vehicles is only at top<br />
management l evel which is sufficient. Equipment<br />
for high altitude trekking and camping is<br />
insufficient and buildings for field staff and anti<br />
poaching camps need improvement in terms of<br />
numbers and regular maintenance.<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
The financial allocation under centrally<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
sponsored scheme 'Development of NPs &<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
WLSs' during past 5 years was as under :<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />
Year Amount Sanctioned Amount Spent<br />
in time.<br />
(lakh Rs.) (lakh Rs.)<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Good ü<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
2001-02 18.00 9.75<br />
2002-03 9.50 8.50<br />
2003-04 17.70 10.53<br />
2004-05 19.42 18.67<br />
2006-07 37.75 23.70<br />
reason for low utilization in all cases is late<br />
release of funds by State Govt. and low working<br />
period due to snowfall. In addition 20 to 25 lakh<br />
rupees are provided by State Govt. under nonplan/plan<br />
budget for salary of staff etc. During<br />
last 4 years 7 to 8 lakh Rupees were also<br />
provided by State Govt. under Ayurveda for<br />
raising of medicinal plants in Ecodevelopment<br />
zone.<br />
One very positive development is funding by<br />
NHPC (engaged in River Valley Hydro Project in<br />
Parwati Valley) to the tune of Rs. 15 crore for 8<br />
years during stage II of the project which is in<br />
progress and promise for more funds during III<br />
phase. This can be of great help if the proposed<br />
Greater Himalayan Conservation Authority<br />
comes in place. The work in these PAs under<br />
this scheme started in 2002-03 when 1.75 crore<br />
was sanctioned, then Catchment Area Treatment<br />
(CAT) plan was made and during 2005-06, Rs.<br />
61 lakh was sanctioned. For 2006-07 Rs. 3 crore<br />
has been set aside. The performance as<br />
reported under various items is a result of sum<br />
total budget and not merely budget provided by<br />
Govt. of <strong>India</strong> under CSS.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
55 |
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
There are various local, national and<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
international NGOs supporting various<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
programmes in these PAs and SAHARA a local<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
NGO is most popular among local people.<br />
Fair<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good ü<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Because of River Valley Project money being<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
made available to this cluster there should be no<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü difficulty of funds provided that it is usefully<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
utilized.<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
The FD and Dy. Director are diploma course<br />
Poor<br />
in the site.<br />
trained from WII and one Forest Ranger is<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
certificate course trained from WII. 2 Forest<br />
Fair<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Guards are trained in wildlife training course run<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
by State Govt. There is good exposure of field<br />
Good ü<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
staff due to World Bank aided COB Project<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
(1994-99).<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
| 56
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
Staff performance down to F.Gd level specially<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
in ecodevelopment, extension and monitoring of<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
wild animal population is directly linked to<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
achievement of management objectives.<br />
Fair<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
The description under Remarks column of 2.5<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
(planning) clearly brings out the effectiveness<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
of public participation in PA management.<br />
Fair<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good ü<br />
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
The system is operational but no special<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
efforts have been made to make it responsive.<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
57 |
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
This is the most positive and effective aspect<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
of the PA management of GHNP and other<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
areas under its umbrella. Formation of 92<br />
Fair<br />
management.<br />
WSCGS covering 980 poor HHS. Large<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
savings by these groups in local banks<br />
Good<br />
by PA management.<br />
undertaking alternative income generation<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
activities thereby earning over 32 lakh rupees.<br />
communities especially women are<br />
Facilitating community based organizations<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
involving user groups, local NGOs, Mahila<br />
Very good ü<br />
Mandals, Yuvak Mandals, Ward Development<br />
Committees and Panchayats are some of the<br />
highlights of this activity.<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
Adequate information in the form of<br />
Poor<br />
publicly available.<br />
management plans of all 3 PAs, Power Point<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
presentation, soft copies of MPs, short films,<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
brochures and folders etc. are available.<br />
Fair<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Exhibits in interpretation centres at Sairopa<br />
assets.<br />
and Manali also give good information.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good ü<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Interpretation Centre at Sairopa and Manali<br />
Provide adequate information to visitors.<br />
Information for community based eco-tourism<br />
is given in the brochure. The visitors have to<br />
trek and camp in open places. There are<br />
limited Forest Rest houses except at Sairopa<br />
and few other places. Parvati Valley trek is<br />
popular.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
| 58
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
There was intensive evaluation during World<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
Bank aided COB project and reporting system<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
during 2 years after the project was also<br />
Fair<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
regular. The present evaluation will be first of<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
its kind based on IUCN guidelines.<br />
Good ü<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends Very good<br />
undertaken.<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The maintenance schedule is as per<br />
departmental norms with adequate funding<br />
from River Valley Projects. There should now<br />
not be any difficulty in maintaining the<br />
infrastructures.<br />
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Detailed census/estimation of important<br />
species of flora and fauna was done by<br />
researchers and field staff during FREE<br />
Project which is being updated on annual<br />
basis. Baseline survey of galiforms has also<br />
been done. The population of<br />
threatened/endangered species are stable.<br />
There may be marginal increase in some<br />
species after strict protection.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
59 |
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
Census of this level will need more scientific<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
inputs but looking at the flora, the biological<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
communities in most of the areas are<br />
Fair ü<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
supportive of native biodiversity.<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
Threats have been reduced to a<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
considerable extent after public participation<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
and education and purchase of rights in NP.<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü It will take sometime for the threats to be<br />
All threats to the site have been abated.<br />
abated provided efforts at present level are<br />
Very good<br />
continued with the same zeal.<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Due to the geographical and climatic<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
conditions only hardcore nature lovers,<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü trekkers, birdwatchers and cultural visitors<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
go to the PAs most of their expectations<br />
Very good<br />
are met.<br />
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
With continued efforts in ecodevelopment,<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
involvement of women and community<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
base organizations, the neighbouring<br />
Fair<br />
supportive.<br />
communities are by and large supportive.<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
The scenario before 5-6 years was quite<br />
Good ü<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
opposite.<br />
All neighbours and communities<br />
Very good<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
| 60
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration of<br />
cultural heritage assets continues, or values<br />
are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Due to involvement of local people<br />
specially women and community based<br />
organizations, the cultural heritage is being<br />
valued and protected. The street theatre<br />
through SAHARA is very popular and<br />
totally based on local culture. Kullu Valley<br />
is called the Valley of Gods and the<br />
Dushera festival which has a exclusive<br />
local touch is worth seeing. It is witnessed<br />
by large number of outsiders including<br />
foreigners..<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 25.0<br />
2. Planning 10 10 90 77.0<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 35.0<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 40.0<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 30.0<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 42.5<br />
Total 33 320 249<br />
Overall Score<br />
78%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
61 |
| 62
6. Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
63 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
Poor<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good ü<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
assessed.<br />
Poor<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good ü<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Poor<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Fair ü<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
| 64
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
categorized.<br />
Fair<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor ü<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
Poor<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good ü<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
65 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Poor<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Fair<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good ü<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
participation in planning.<br />
Poor<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good ü<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
Not applicable<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />
adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair<br />
Not applicable<br />
programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
| 66
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Poor<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Fair<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good ü<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
67 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessm ent criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
are never released in time.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
management of the site.<br />
Poor<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
| 68
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
in the site.<br />
Poor<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair ü<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
Poor<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />
69 |
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good<br />
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
complaints.<br />
Poor<br />
Complaints handling system operational but<br />
not responsive to individual issues and<br />
Fair<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
| 70
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Fair ü<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor ü<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance Good<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Very good<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
71 |
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
Good<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Very good<br />
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining. Poor ü<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Poor<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Fair<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
have enhanced.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
| 72
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor ü<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
hostile.<br />
Poor<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
Poor<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Fair<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is Good ü<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
73 |
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 22.5<br />
2. Planning 8 10 80 57.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 27.5<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 30<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 15<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 32.5<br />
Total 33 310 185<br />
Overall Score<br />
60%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
| 74
7. Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
75 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
The value are well documented in the<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
management plan and assessed and monitored<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
through annual reports and periodic census.<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
Threats are identified in the management plan<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
and assessed in annual reports<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good ü<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
The sanctuary is highly vulnerable to biotic<br />
Poor ü<br />
interference.<br />
interferences, which have been kept under<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
control through rigid protection and EDC<br />
Fair<br />
interference.<br />
Committees.<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
| 76
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
The site is well identified and demarcated with<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
clear cut zonation of core, buffer and eco-tourism<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
zone.<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
The site has got detailed and scientifically drawn<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
management plan which is valid upto 2006-2007<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
Yes action to revise the management plan has<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
already been taken in hand.<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
77 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
The values are well documented in the current<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
management plan. It adequately safeguards<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
matroflora and macrofauna.<br />
Fair<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good ü<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
Except preparation of scientific management<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
plan, the stake holders are involved in other<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
planning process.<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good ü<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
The management plan identifies details of areas<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
requiring habitat restoration including nature and<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
quantum of restoration monitoring is done by<br />
frequent field visits.<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
Spp. to be re-introduced are listed in the<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
management plan with indication of source of<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
such animals. Earlier program of re-introduction<br />
was properly monitored.<br />
programmes are in place for<br />
Fair<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
| 78
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
The site is well covered by R.T. network. Regular<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
patrollings are done through vehicle, elephant<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
and on foot in irregular cycle spread over 24<br />
Good<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
hours.<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Man animal conflicts are mitigated by electric<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
but still some damage by elephant is there.<br />
fencing, mobile patrol party and elephant squad,<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
The site is integrated into eastern doors elephant<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
reserve and also T.C.U of WWF following ecosystem<br />
and landscape approach.<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
Fair<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good ü<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
The area has adequate committed personnels<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
located over strategic areas of the sanctuary.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
Total resources available from various sources<br />
are adequate and all staff work towards specific<br />
to management objectives.<br />
management objective.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
79 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Due to high priority given to the sanctuary it gets<br />
funding from non-plan, state plan and other<br />
department also shortage of government vehicles<br />
is addressed by hired vehicle. Some specific<br />
objectives are met up from other departments<br />
funds also.<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
Since funding comes form various sources often<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
they are not available in time. These are also<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />
subject to adhocism and person linked. However<br />
priority actions are attended.<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
NGO’s participation is limited to wildlife census,<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
public awareness program, supply of some<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
patrolling kits and occasional field training about<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
wildlife crime.<br />
Fair ü<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Very good<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
| 80
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Though human and financial resources are<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
generally adequate, but these cannot be<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü depended upon, because there are many<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks.<br />
vacancies and fund from other sources not<br />
Very good<br />
guaranteed.<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Only few trained officers and frontline staff in<br />
Poor<br />
in the site.<br />
wildlife management.<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair ü<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
All staff work for specific management<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
objectives.<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good ü<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
Public participation is there in most of the<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
aspects of P.A. management except where<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
specific scientific and technical skill is<br />
Fair<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
required.<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
81 |
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
Most of the complaints are herd and attended,<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
but there is no register of recording all such<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
comments or complaints with note of how it is<br />
attended.<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
The demand of livelihood issues including<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
requirements of natural resource use is very<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
high only some of them could be met through<br />
Fair ü<br />
management.<br />
E.D.C eco-tourism etc.<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
Good<br />
by PA management.<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
Very good<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
Brochures booklets and hoardings are there<br />
Poor<br />
publicly available.<br />
giving general information only.<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Fair ü<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
| 82
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Visitors facilities are there in selected places<br />
which generally enhance P.A. values.<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
Management related trends are systematically<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
evaluated and reported through annual and<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
special reports in routine manner.<br />
Fair<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good ü<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Systematic inventory records are there for<br />
public assets and also its maintenance<br />
schedule including plantation and habitat<br />
improvement works. However due to fund<br />
constraints all maintenance could not be done<br />
in time.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
83 |
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
All endangered and threatened spp are<br />
either increasing or stable. Special rise is<br />
there in Rhino, Bison and Sambar<br />
population.<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
Recognised macro biological communities<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
are generally healthy and sustain native<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
biodiversity.<br />
Fair<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
Illegal felling and poaching reduced to great<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
extent but some damage from grazing, flood<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü and cement dust coming from Bhutan<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
dolomite mines remain.<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Most of the visitors can see Rhino, Bison,<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
Sambar and hog deer almost in all visits.<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
| 84
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
Panchayats and E.D.C members; including<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
tea gardens are supportive of P.A.<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
management.<br />
Fair<br />
supportive.<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Cultural heritage sites of Bania Ruins and<br />
Totos of Totopara are addressed to the<br />
extent possible and their degradation and<br />
deterioration significantly addressed.<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 17.5<br />
2. Planning 9 10 100 92.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 37.5<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 35<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 25<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 45<br />
Total 32 330 252.5<br />
Overall Score<br />
77%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
85 |
| 86
8. Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />
Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />
87 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
The value are evaluated and monitored<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good ü<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
The threats from the Ithi barrage and the hydroelectric<br />
power generation at Loktak lake has been<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
identified. But all these threats are not associated<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
with day to day management of the PA.<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good ü<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
The site has some biotic interference.<br />
Poor<br />
interference.<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Fair ü<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />
| 88
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Zonations has been done in a broader<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
dimensions. Being dominated by floating<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
vegetation, detailed may not be possible.<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
The site has management plan, which is<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
comprehensive. But (draft) has not yet been<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive.<br />
approved by Government. CWW guided the MP<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
preparation.<br />
Good<br />
Plan.<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
The time of up dating has not yet come. (2001-<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
2011)<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />
89 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
The site is safeguarding the threatened<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Biodiversity value.<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Fair<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good ü<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
State holder do participate in the planning<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
process.<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair ü<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
The second home for Sanghai has been<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
established in the vicinity of Imphal city. Hence<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
the question of the reintroduction does not arise,<br />
under the continued ecological threat from the Ithi<br />
programmes are in place for<br />
Fair ü<br />
barrage.<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />
| 90
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Protection strategy is by and large working.<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
Being a part of Loktak Lake (Ramsar site) it is<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
automatically integrated with the wider ecological<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
network.<br />
Fair<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good ü<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
<strong>Full</strong> attention is given to the PA, as this is the<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
prized PA in Manipur.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />
91 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
By and large, the resources are well organized.<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
The recourses are not adequate.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
Resources are used as per the priority action.<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
The resources are not adequate, primarily<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />
because of the different levels of conflicts<br />
including insurgency.<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good ü<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
Some NGO support is coming to the PA.<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />
| 92
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
PA authority do not consider that to be sufficient.<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Very less Wildlife trained persons are available.<br />
Poor<br />
in the site.<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair ü<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
Poor<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
This is mainly related to the protection of<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
Sanghai.<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />
93 |
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
complaints.<br />
Poor<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
Number of eco-development activities have<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
been taken up.<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Fair<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
Reports are available. Booklets, Posters, T-<br />
Poor<br />
publicly available.<br />
shirts are all available. People know about the<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
PA, and has a lot of understanding about the<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
problem in the protection of the PA.<br />
Fair<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />
| 94
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Some facilities are available. But because of<br />
the insurgency problems, even these are<br />
under utilized.<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
Poor<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good ü<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
These are kept systematically.<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />
95 |
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The census is done systematically. Now WII<br />
has got a project on Sanghai. They are<br />
helping in the census.<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
The emphasis only on Sanghai. Some study<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
and reports are available on birds and<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
mammals.<br />
Fair<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
The threat is a permanent nature, and as<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
reported the Barrage is gradually degrading<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü the “Phundis”. The solution cannot come<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
from Forest department alone. Political will<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
to save it is a must.<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
People can see the unique vegetation the<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
“Phundi”. The sighting depends on the time<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü and chance.<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />
| 96
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
Good support.<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
This species “sanghai” has been identified<br />
as cultural asset. Hence, a lot of support<br />
form their community is being offered.<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 25<br />
2. Planning 9 10 100 72.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 35<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 32.5<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 32.5<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 47.5<br />
Total 32 330 245<br />
Overall Score<br />
74%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />
97 |
| 98
9. Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />
Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />
99 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
The site has been studied extensively by<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
researchers from B.N.H.S, SACON , WII ,<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
Dehradun and host of other organizations as a<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
result there are Doctoral studies [15] and<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
hundreds of research papers .Site values are<br />
Good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
scientifically assessed ,studied and monitored.<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
Bird count involving volunteers , is carried out<br />
Very good ü<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
regularly.<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
Threats include paucity/ erratic water supply,<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
invasion of weeds, biotic pressures resulting in<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
forest fires /grazing, industrial pollution ,<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
excessive or uncontrolled tourists visitation , feral<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
cattle /dogs etc. Being identified as World<br />
Good<br />
assessed.<br />
Heritage as also Ramsar convention site is being<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
critically watched over by inter national agencies.<br />
assessed. Very good ü Air quality is being monitored in context of<br />
proximity to major industries<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
National park has well defined boundaries and is<br />
Poor<br />
interference.<br />
fenced by masonry wall. How ever, there is no<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
cushion to contain high pressures to meet<br />
Fair<br />
interference.<br />
bonafied needs.<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good ü<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />
| 100
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
In the absence of buffer around the park<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
limitations are severe but never the less, well<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
designed , apt zonation provided for. Scope for<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
Eco-development activity well defined; possibility<br />
Good ü<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
to excise areas under pressure need be pursued.<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
Ms Shruti Sharma/ B.Praveen,’s plan is science<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
based, comprehensive and seen to have<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive.<br />
incorporated inputs form different sources .<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
System for routine and systematic updating in<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
place.<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good ü<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />
101 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
Initially ,Siberian crane was central to<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
conservation values but there are other equally<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
important values and overall planning addresses<br />
Fair<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
these needs.<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good ü<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
Being N.P. scope of stake holders in traditional<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
way is limited ;Consultations within now available<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
frame work( Advisory committee under Sec 33 B,<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
Amended Wild life [Protection] Act , need be<br />
Good ü<br />
processes.<br />
availed. Ear marking funds from MP.’s quota is<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
an indication of elected representatives interest in<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
park management. Contribution of WWF<br />
Very good<br />
/swarovasky in establishment of Nature<br />
interpretation center is a welcome feature.<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
Quantity and time of water release , into the Park<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
, in itself is a major tool for maintaining ecological<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
status; controlled forest fire / grazing, removal of<br />
grass /inflammable material to reduce fire hazard<br />
restoration.<br />
;eradication of invasive aquatic and terrestrial<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
weeds have been given importance due to it<br />
Good ü<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
For biological control on Feral cattle /dogs it is<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
necessary to re introduce Leopard if sustainable.<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
Park is to small to hold viable Tiger population .<br />
Re introduction of Siberian crane is a<br />
programmes are in place for<br />
Fair<br />
multifaceted issue and need inter national co<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
operation too. Present planning process do not<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
Good ü address these issues in depth.<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />
| 102
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Plan includes prescriptions to raise height of wall,<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
repair or newly construct where ever essential;<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
flying squad exists .For forest fire prevention<br />
Good ü<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
support of stake holders ensured. (Sharing thatch<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
grass / fuel wood are issues on which policy<br />
Very good<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
decisions need be given early)<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Grass cutting /removal of firewood will helping<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
earning good will.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
Present scenario have limited options so far as<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
duly established PAs but through concept of<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
Community reserve avifauna potentials of private<br />
Fair ü<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
lands could b harnessed.<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
With area of 29km2 , park staff headed by DyCF<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
who is assisted by ACF [1] , RFOs [3] and<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
adequate subordinate staff is appropriate ;<br />
assignment of duties and resource allocation<br />
to management objectives.<br />
suitable to achieve management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />
103 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
Jeeps [2] , motor cycles [6],canters ,tractors,<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
electra vans, tempo etc for mobility, wireless net<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
work for communication ,fire arms for protection ,<br />
administrative and residential quarters are<br />
to management objectives.<br />
available to staff.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
Staff for research ,monitoring was not in<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
place[Research officer]<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
Considerable inputs in the sphere of research<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
but it may not always need based for the PA<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management. WWF has provided vehicles and<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
interpretation center.<br />
Fair<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good ü<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />
| 104
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
GoI, as also state allocations inadequate,<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
considering site needs. Human resources<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü sufficient.<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Site has experienced staff , subordinates are<br />
Poor<br />
in the site.<br />
locals and thus have limitations [para 2.4.6, SEC<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
report ] . Though not trained in a formal manner<br />
Fair<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
,in-service training/orientation given to staff<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
,meets demand at that level.<br />
Good ü<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
Very good<br />
posted in the site.<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
Conventional management control is , in away,<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
ensures link as desired but specifically designed<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
system not in place.<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />
105 |
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
WWF conducted number of sensitization<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
programs for people around the park ;<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
department has carried out Eco- development<br />
Fair ü<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
activities; all this have generated much<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
needed good will for the Park management.<br />
Good<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Riksha pullers and guides , the stake holders<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
do render assistance in protection / forest fire<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
control as expected under section 27 ( 2 )(a)<br />
management.<br />
to (e) Wild Life {Protection ] Act. An early<br />
Very good<br />
resolution on thatch grass and firewood<br />
collection/distribution amongst peripheral<br />
villages (on lines of section 29) at the policy<br />
level is necessary.<br />
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
Park manager opines that generally stake<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
holders are contented ; entries in visitor books<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
at reception and Interpretation centers were in<br />
support. Media at local/state /national levels<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
has been alert and responsive judging from<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
the coverage that park receives.<br />
Good ü<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response Very good<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
Being National Park technically area is free of<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
any rights and concessions; but peculiarity of<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
having no buffer around it needs careful<br />
Fair ü<br />
management.<br />
handling at the legal / policy level.<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
Good<br />
by PA management.<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
Very good<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />
| 106
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
assets.<br />
Fair<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
With large number of on going research<br />
projects, information on management aspects<br />
get media attention e.g. removal of grass<br />
,grazing , fire control, likely pollution impact ,<br />
status of avifauna etc, etc. Advisory<br />
committee as provided under WL (P ) Act,<br />
Amendment 2002 need be constituted.<br />
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Park is small and mostly there are day visitors<br />
;Rajasthan T.D.Corpo./ I.T.D.C./ private hotel<br />
provide camping facilities . Tourist interface<br />
with park through “riksha “ drivers , guides is<br />
well managed; both are good job as park<br />
ambassadors. Dr.Salim Ali Interpretation<br />
center is of high quality. Road side signage<br />
need improvement.<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
As an IBA and world heritage site , critical<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
avifauna population estimations is an going<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
exercise which is transparent.<br />
Fair<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good ü<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />
107 |
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Schedules generally in place but requisite<br />
funds wanting.<br />
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Park’s special feature is migratory birds ,<br />
park is a staging ground for in /out ward<br />
journeys for birds coming from near and far<br />
off places like palearctic regions This year<br />
mainly due to less rainfall wet lands have not<br />
filled up. How ever, there have been bad<br />
years in past followed by quick recovery.<br />
How resilient is the system , will be tested<br />
soon ; problem of sustained and timely water<br />
supply is a key element with multidimensions.<br />
Presently, status is poor.<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
This man made eco system needs careful<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
handling , wet lands are not climatic climax,<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
different gilds require specific conditions and<br />
Fair ü<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
thus constant moderating of local factors<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
essential ,it is an on going continuous<br />
Good<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
process .Basic design and systems are<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
sound. Long term solution to timely and<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
adequate water supply is a key that need be<br />
Very good<br />
resolved or else only few elements have a<br />
future in this area.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />
| 108
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
Some threats to site have been abated ;<br />
Poor ü<br />
have enhanced.<br />
{short comings not at the field level}.Attempt<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
to use ground water to augment water<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
supply as seen on ground is laudable.<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Barring water scarcity years, visit is<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
rewarding to average visitor<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
Most neighbors / communities are<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
supportive<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Planned approach to management under<br />
way, but lot need be done at policy levels.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />
109 |
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 29<br />
2. Planning 9 10 100 78<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 44<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 32<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 31<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 36<br />
Total 32 330 250<br />
Overall Score<br />
76%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />
| 110
10. Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />
Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />
111 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
Values identified and systematically recorded<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good ü<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
Threats are systematically identified, on all aspects<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good ü<br />
1.3 Is the site free from outside human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
The site do not have very high biotic interference ,<br />
Poor<br />
interference.<br />
as the site almost inaccessible from different<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
sides. There is international boarder in northern<br />
Fair<br />
interference.<br />
and eastern sides.<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good ü<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />
| 112
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP /WLS) and categorized (in terms of Zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Site (habitat)identified of various identified<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
threatened species, notification for that has been<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
done.<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good<br />
Site identified correctly systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor ü The comprehensive management plan is under<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
preparation.<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive<br />
Non-availability of the Topo sheets of the sensitive<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
boarder areas is one of the reason ( only 44 out of<br />
Good<br />
Plan<br />
77 available)<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />
participatory process.<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
Does not arise<br />
Poor ü<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
ad-hoc manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated Very good<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />
113 |
2.4 Does the site safeguard the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
Sites does protect a large number of the<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
threatened species.<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Fair<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good ü<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
The majority of the stakeholders do participate in<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
the planning.<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
The habitat restoration programme is well<br />
Poor<br />
entirely ad-hoc.<br />
planned. But due to the remoteness of the<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
various sites and lack of man power, big plans<br />
cannot be taken up.<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />
The reintroduction programme has not yet been<br />
Poor<br />
adhoc.<br />
properly designed, but some planning has been<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
done<br />
programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair ü<br />
programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />
| 114
2.8 Does the site have an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
The protection strategy of the forest department<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
is good and effective. The department knows the<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
dynamic problems.<br />
Good<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Site is capable of mitigating human-wildlife<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
conflicts, but it may not be immediate<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network /<br />
The site is located in the vast Himalayan<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
landscape, hence there is no major activities the<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
department can take. the site is an integral part of<br />
Fair<br />
into a network / landscape.<br />
the broad Himalayan alpine and sub-alpines land<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
scape and ecosystem<br />
Good ü<br />
network / landscape<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network<br />
Very good<br />
/ landscape.<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are the personnel well organized and managed with access adequate recourses ?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
Personnel though few in number are highly<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management<br />
motivated. Personnel are allocated, as far as<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
practicable, towards achievement of the<br />
management goal.<br />
to management objectives<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />
115 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resource explicitly allocated<br />
There are very few vehicles and for that matter<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
any form of other infrastructure. But what ever<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for<br />
PA management. but not systematically Fair<br />
the resources available to the management that<br />
has not been utilised towards the achievement of<br />
linked to management objectives.<br />
the specific management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked with to priority actions and are funds released<br />
timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
In a number of cases the specific allocation of<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
funds is being made to achieve specific<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
management objectives<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
NGO made very little contribution or actively<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
participated. Only training has been offered to<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
forest staff.<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />
| 116
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor ü Compared to the areas to be covered (18000 sq<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
km) of inaccessible but very vital areas,<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
resource is extremely insufficient.<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained man power resources for effective management ?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and front lone<br />
Very few trained man power<br />
Poor<br />
staff in the site .<br />
Few trained officers and front line staff who<br />
are posted in the site<br />
Fair ü<br />
A large number of trained officers and front<br />
lined staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and front line staff<br />
are posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
With a very small staff strength, linkage is being<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
done as far as practicable, to achieve the<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management objective.<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />
117 |
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
The public participation is praise worthy. This<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
is systematically done. The example of selling<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
of cattle by the villagers in some cases, due<br />
Fair<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
to the stop<strong>page</strong> of the grazing by forest<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
department, is an indicator of the success and<br />
Good<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
the relationship maintained between the<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
villagers and the management.<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good ü<br />
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
There is a responsive system of handling<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
complains, but all the complains cannot be<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
addressed.<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
The livelihood issues are being addressed to<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
some extent. The population been<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
comparatively less in the fringe areas, hence<br />
Fair<br />
management.<br />
alternative livelihood are being suggested and<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are<br />
market linkages are being done by<br />
Good ü<br />
addressed by PA management.<br />
management<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
Very good<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />
| 118
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
The information on important wildlife and the<br />
Poor<br />
publicly available.<br />
natural resources like rivers and streams are<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
available. Leaflets and brushers are available,<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
apart from TV and Radio broadcasting.<br />
Fair<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good ü<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The tourism services are not adequate. The<br />
Department of Tourism in collaboration with<br />
the department of forest take up issues of<br />
tourism. There are enormous opportunities on<br />
the expansion of the tourism in collaboration<br />
with the department of forest.<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
The connectivity with the Head quarters and<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
the field is very good.<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good ü<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />
119 |
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
It is done<br />
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
It is difficult to assess. There is no regular<br />
census of all the Threatened species<br />
available. This is mainly because of the<br />
terrain and the methodology for specific<br />
species. The photographic records of the<br />
important species are available.<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacing that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
As the situation prevails, it is expected that<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
the native population will flourish.<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Fair<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />
| 120
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
Because of the good relation with the fringe<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
villagers , a number of threats have been<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
abated.<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
The expectations of the visitors are normally<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
met, in terms of information, etc. and offering<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü assistance in the area of such a terrain.<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
The relationship is very good. Intelligence<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
net work is also in place.<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good ü<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The management has fairly good idea about<br />
the specific cultural assets, of the Lepcha<br />
and Bhutia communities. They are motivated<br />
to protect the assets.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />
121 |
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 27.5<br />
2. Planning 10 10 100 69.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 27.5<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 37.5<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 27.5<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 47.5<br />
Total 39 330 237<br />
Overall Score<br />
72 %<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />
| 122
11. Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
123 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
The values of Kistwar National Park are generally<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
assessed in the Management Plan, which has<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
recently been prepared. The monitoring is done in<br />
Fair ü<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
a limited area of about 180 km 2 (out of 425 km 2 ),<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
which is under the control of wildlife department<br />
Good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
though the intention notification was issued in<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
1981.<br />
Very good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
Very general threats like poaching, grazing,<br />
Poor ü<br />
assessed.<br />
woodcutting, fire, snow and insects are<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
mentioned in the management plan but they have<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
not been assessed for different parts of the<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
National Park.<br />
Good<br />
asses sed.<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
Very good<br />
assessed.<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
Only the glacial, snow bound and rugged upper<br />
Poor ü<br />
interference.<br />
reaches of the Park are free from biotic<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interferences due to being unapproachable. In all<br />
Fair<br />
interference.<br />
other approachable areas the site has extensive<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
human and biotic interference. There are over 20<br />
Good<br />
interference.<br />
villages inside the Park and equal number in the<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
immediate surrounds. 30 to 40 thousand sheep<br />
interference.<br />
and goats from neighboring and far off areas<br />
remain on the high altitude pastures from May to<br />
September. Dependence of villagers for timber,<br />
fuel and fodder on the National Park is total.<br />
Medicinal plants are also extracted. NHPC has<br />
proposed two Hydroelectric Projects inside the<br />
Park for which 9 km 2 land is being demanded.<br />
State Govt. is keen to get these projects through<br />
but they have not yet been cleared by Govt. of<br />
<strong>India</strong> under Forest Conservation Act. 8 Km.<br />
Very good<br />
motor road is under construction inside the NP<br />
and felling of oak and other trees is being done<br />
freely. Construction of road and buildings at Dam<br />
site in clear violation of FCA is a serious matter.<br />
There are some 25 'Bahaks' (high altitude<br />
pastures) inside the National Park over which<br />
villagers from neighbouring areas have rights of<br />
grazing and Bakarwals and Gujjars who are<br />
seasonal nomads keep over 25000 cattle heads<br />
(sheep, goats, horses, buffalos) from May to<br />
September.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
| 124
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Though 70% of the NP area is proposed to be<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
managed as core zone and rest as buffer zone<br />
Fair ü<br />
categorized.<br />
as mentioned in the management plan but on<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
ground there is hardly any demarcation or<br />
Good<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
restrictions. The intention notification of the N.P.<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
issued as far back as 1981 is seriously defective<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
as it includes the private land holdings and<br />
villages inside. No settlement proceedings have<br />
been undertaken nor any efforts are visible in this<br />
direction. The only way to make the NP viable for<br />
long term is to exclude the villages and private<br />
lands along with adjoining RF compartments<br />
during the settlement Project and make this a<br />
Very good<br />
Ecorestoration zone on the lines of GHNP in HP<br />
& keep the area under the management of NP<br />
authorities and carryout intensive<br />
ecodevelopment activities in this area. The Park<br />
area on the ground is reported to be 1790. 88km 2<br />
where as in notification only 425 km 2 area is<br />
mentioned. By excluding villages and few<br />
compartments of RF for practicing bonafide rights<br />
the viability of the NP will be ensured.<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
A Management Plan has recently been prepared<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
for 5 years (2006-2011) but the values and<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive.<br />
threats to site values have not been properly<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
identified and needs review with the help of some<br />
Good ü<br />
Plan.<br />
competent naturalist/researchers. The present<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Regional Wildlife Warden has the potential to get<br />
Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />
it properly prepared under his guidance.<br />
participatory process.<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
The Management Plan has just been prepared<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
and needs review and proper management<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
prescriptions.<br />
Fair ü<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
Good<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated Very good<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
125 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
Due to difficult geographical configuration of the<br />
Poor ü<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
site it has great potential for many threatened<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
species of fauna and flora but the heavy biotic<br />
Fair<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
pressure makes the PA vulnerable.<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
Due to faulty notification and lack of efforts to<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
remedy the same there is general apathy of local<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü villagers to participate in the planning. However,<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
scientists are involved in census operations and<br />
Good<br />
processes.<br />
PA management helps the interior villages in<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
maintenance of footpaths and bridges. Local<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
people participate in different activities as<br />
Very good<br />
labourers and at times also provide intelligence to<br />
PA Managers.<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
Being a high altitude NP very little habitat<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
restoration programme are carried out except<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair ü<br />
occasional planting and pasture development. In<br />
fact the best habitat restoration programme for<br />
restoration.<br />
such a habitat would be minimizing and<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
regulating grazing, removal of forest produce by<br />
Good<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
local people etc.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />
No such programme has ever been undertaken<br />
Poor _<br />
adhoc.<br />
in the PA.<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair _<br />
programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Good _<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good _<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
| 126
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
The only protection strategy is the foot patrolling<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü by frontline staff posted in far flung areas. Staff<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strength being poor this is not effective. During<br />
Good<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
winter there is hardly any strategy except<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
collection of intelligence, though important<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
species become vulnerable as they come down<br />
Very good<br />
to habitations. Due to unchecked grazing in the<br />
N.P. there is little achievement.<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor ü The conflict is due to crop raiding by herbivores,<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
pastures by snow leopard and brown bear, cattle<br />
killing of sheep and goats while on high altitude<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
lifting by leopards and mauling by black bears.<br />
Good<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Provision for compensation is only in case of<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
human kills/injuries and there is no compensation<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
for cattle killing. No other mitigatry measures are<br />
practiced.<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
The site has a great potential as well as there is<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
need for wider ecological integration with Paddar<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
range of Kistwar territorial Forest Division and<br />
Fair ü<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
some PAs in Chamba district of H.P. This site<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
can be a potential alternative for Hangul. The<br />
Good<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
recent census findings have reported presence of<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
Hangul in the N.P. Paddar Range has good<br />
landscape.<br />
population of Himalayan Tarh and the entire belt<br />
could be a good snow leopard habitat. So far no<br />
efforts have been made in this duration. The<br />
present Regional Wildlife Warden has recently<br />
Very good<br />
tracked the area adjoining H.P. and has found it<br />
one of the most virgin forest areas with great<br />
potential for conservation of threatened species.<br />
The area also supports potential populations of<br />
several galliform species.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
127 |
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
In the Management Plan, 5 Ranges, 10 Blocks<br />
and 25 beats have proposed against which only<br />
2 Ranges, 2 Blocks and 19 beats are existing.<br />
Out of 46 forest compartments only 33 are in<br />
possession of Park management. Looking at the<br />
difficult terrain, adverse climate and high biotic<br />
pressure the staff strength is poor. Other<br />
resources such as equipment for high altitude<br />
trekking, Arms, camping equipment etc. are also<br />
poor.<br />
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
There is no road access in the Park and vehicles<br />
are needed only by top management. Equipment<br />
for high altitude tracking and camping are<br />
inadequate and the condition of buildings and<br />
roads specially bridges over fast flowing streams<br />
is very bad and needs immediate attention.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
| 128
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
are never released in time.<br />
Poor<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released<br />
in time.<br />
Fair<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Budget for Kistwan NP was provided by State<br />
Govt. under different heads of Plan and Non Plan<br />
budget as well as from centrally sponsored<br />
scheme of Development of National parks and<br />
Sanctuaries. Last 5 years comparison of State<br />
and CSS budget is as under:<br />
Year State Budget Allocation under % (sd)<br />
CSS<br />
2005-06 74.89 11.40 6<br />
2004-05 55.00 10.00 10<br />
2003-04 52.00 9.92 7<br />
2002-03 53.38 8.40 31<br />
2001-02 47.22 25.00 17<br />
The management effectiveness has been<br />
evaluated on the basis of total budget allotted<br />
from different sources. In the State budget bulk<br />
of allotment in non-plan is against salaries and<br />
wages of the Staff and very little for habitat<br />
improvement antipoaching and other<br />
conservation activities. The CSS budget, though<br />
less in quantity but caters for important activities<br />
related to habitat management awareness,<br />
census, infrastructure development etc. Budget<br />
is not adequate either from State or under CSS<br />
and the release by State Govt. is also not timely.<br />
The funds under CSS were mostly utilized for<br />
infrastructure development, habitat improvement,<br />
census, staff amenities, publicity etc.<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
There is no NGO support for the N.P. mostly<br />
Poor ü<br />
management of the site.<br />
due to insurgency problem.<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
Fair<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Very good<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
129 |
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Neither human nor financial resource is<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü considered sufficient by the PA Manager.<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Director, Kistwar NP is a post graduate in<br />
Poor<br />
in the site.<br />
Wildlife Science from Aligarh University and<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
Regional Wildlife Warden is also highly qualified<br />
Fair<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
and experienced. At lower level few staff is<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
trained specifically in wildlife but their continuous<br />
Good ü<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
posting in wildlife areas is an added advantage.<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
The services of experts are utilized during<br />
Very good<br />
posted in the site.<br />
census operations.<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
Mostly protection is considered as management<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
objective. There was no management plan for a<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
long period and even the current plan is not very<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
clear in management objectives particularly for<br />
Fair ü<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
the frontline staff.<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Very good<br />
management objectives.<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
There is little public participation in PA<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
Management except in fire control, occasional<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
intelligence input and working as labourers in<br />
Fair ü<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
the activities relating to infrastructure<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
development and habitat management. In fact<br />
Good<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
due to faulty notification of the NP there is<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
resentment in the people against the N.P.<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />
management.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
| 130
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
Complaints are handled in a routine manner<br />
Poor ü<br />
complaints.<br />
and there is no responsive system in place.<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
Good<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response Very good<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
So long as the legal restrictions can be<br />
Poor ü<br />
management.<br />
imposed, no comments on livelihood issues<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
would be justified. At present there is free<br />
Fair<br />
management.<br />
excess for grazing, timber and fuel wood<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
collection, collection of NTFP etc. Some minor<br />
Good<br />
by PA management.<br />
issues like distribution of Solar energy sources<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
etc. are being addressed at small scale.<br />
communities especially women are<br />
Very good<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
Information on PA management is available in<br />
Poor<br />
publicly available.<br />
brochures, folders, census reports and<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
Management Plan.<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Fair<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good ü<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
131 |
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Due to insurgency problem there are no<br />
visitors going to the N.P. There are little visitor<br />
services developed but some informative<br />
brochures have been prepared.<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
A detailed wildlife census was carried out in<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
Kistwar N.P. and Paddar Forest Range of<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
adjoining territorial FD in March 2006 with the<br />
Fair<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
help of Mr. Hilaluddin an expert consultant. A<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
detailed report has been prepared giving<br />
Good ü<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
population trends of important species. Prior<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
to this, census of Ibex was carried out in<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
1999-2000 and detailed report was made.<br />
undertaken.<br />
Both the reports give good account of habitat<br />
Very good<br />
conditions and biotic interference and<br />
suggestions for improvement of management<br />
practices. No other evaluation has been<br />
carried out.<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
There is a schedule of infrastructures<br />
(buildings, bridges etc.) maintained. Most of<br />
the buildings and bridges are damaged and<br />
not serviceable. Efforts are being made,<br />
though slowly to restore them with the help of<br />
CSS grants. Much more funds both from<br />
State and GOI would be needed to restore<br />
the assets to a minimum utility level.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
| 132
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable. Fair<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable. Good ü<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
The only detailed census of most of the<br />
important mammal species was done in<br />
March 2006 in which minimum and<br />
maximum estimated population size for<br />
following species has been given for Kistwar<br />
N.P.<br />
Species<br />
Estimated Population<br />
Minimum<br />
Maximum<br />
Very good<br />
Musk deer 60 99<br />
Hangul 4 20<br />
Goral 527 1036<br />
Ibex 684 900<br />
Common Langur 747 2360<br />
Rhesus monkey 2884 3508<br />
Yellow throated martin 109 148<br />
Chuker Partridge 412 934<br />
Kaleej pheasant 173 341<br />
Koklas pheasant 676 947<br />
Monal pheasant 159 237<br />
Encounter rates of some other species was<br />
estimated as under:<br />
Species No. of animal seen/km<br />
tr.walk<br />
Black Bear 0.004<br />
Leopard cat 0.03<br />
Himalayan fox 0.03<br />
Jackal 0.02<br />
Western tragopan 0.004<br />
The 1999-2000 census of Ibex gave an<br />
estimated figure of 612 & the present census<br />
shows a population increase. Presence of<br />
Hangul is a new finding.<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
Due to heavy grazing pressure it is not<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
possible to assume that biological<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
communities could remain at a mix of ages<br />
Fair ü<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
and spacing that will support native<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
biodiversity. However, there are numerous<br />
Good<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
unapproachable valleys and sites where this<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
could be possible though no such survey<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
has neither been made nor it is easily<br />
possible.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
133 |
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
The threats remain at the same critical level<br />
Poor ü<br />
have enhanced.<br />
as there are no efforts to contain them<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
except the poaching. Violation of FCA in<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
construction of Hydroelectric projects has<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
added a new dimension to the threats.<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor ü There are no visitors due to insurgency<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
problem.<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
The communities in interior areas are to<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
some extent supportive but those in the<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
outer fringes are hostile due to faulty<br />
Fair ü<br />
supportive.<br />
notification and absence of any efforts to<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
settle the rights. Imposition of FCA and ban<br />
Good<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
on road construction and other development<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
activities without any proper solution in sight<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
is another reason for hostility towards the<br />
N.P.<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Cultural heritage assets are fully protected<br />
due to remoteness of the area.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
| 134
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 10.0<br />
2. Planning 9 10 90 42.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 25.0<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 22.5<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 22.5<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 32.5<br />
Total 32 320 155<br />
Overall Score<br />
48%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />
135 |
| 136
12. Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />
Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />
137 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
The PA has a well written draft management plan<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
that spells out values of the area. Goal to reintroduce<br />
Lion, the mega predator, is a unique<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
Fair ü<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
feature. Importance of possible corridor with<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
Ranthambore.<br />
Good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
Very good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
Past history indicates law and order problems<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
(dacoits infestation threats, past ill treatment of<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
forests) unrestricted grazing of local and<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
migratory cattle from Rajasthan are under stated<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
and monitoring mechanism inadequate.<br />
Good ü<br />
assessed.<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
Very good<br />
assessed.<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
Since 1997 process of shifting villages has begun<br />
Poor<br />
interference.<br />
and till today twenty four villages have been<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
resettled. There is a comprehensive and cocoordinated<br />
relocation activity, thanks to<br />
Fair<br />
interference.<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
excellent work by PA management/ Govt.<br />
Good ü<br />
interference.<br />
Machinery.<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
Very good<br />
interference.<br />
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Site i.e. sanctuary has been a well recognized<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
conservation area and no commercial<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
exploitation for long and now there is extensive<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
buffer around it. Very comprehensive zonation is<br />
Good ü<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
a high point of policy decision.<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />
| 138
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
There is draft Management plan by Chaudhari for<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
period ending ’05. Area around present sanctuary<br />
Fair ü<br />
comprehensive.<br />
need be brought under the plan, may be as<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
multiple use area. Prior to sanctuary status,<br />
Good<br />
Plan.<br />
working plan by Maharshi was in place.<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />
participatory process.<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
Adequate provisions exist for revision.<br />
Poor ü<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated Very good<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
All values not documented e.g. otters, caracal,<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
desert cat etc. This is Tiger habitat but there shift<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
in emphasis to Lion. “Soft release” of lion is a<br />
Fair ü<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
major goal and will be a great achievement when<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
accomplished.<br />
Good<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
Very good<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
Eco development committees exist in all the<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
villages. There is high power committee to over<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü see rehabilitation, how ever compliance to<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
section 33B wildlife (Prot.) Act, yet be made PA<br />
Good<br />
processes.<br />
manager opines that issue of person chairing<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
committee need to be reconsidered and are<br />
participate in all planning processes. Very good<br />
resolved first at the policy level. There would be<br />
more stake holders beyond PAPs.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />
139 |
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
Shifting of villages has contributed to eco<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
restoration in a big way and habitat recovery is<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
being monitored by competent researchers under<br />
guidance of Wildlife Institute of <strong>India</strong>, Dehradun<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
Very comprehensive plan is being persistently<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
perused and arrangement in place to monitor the<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
same. Rigid grazing control along sanctuary<br />
boundaries will be a crucial management tool.<br />
programmes are in place for<br />
Fair ü<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Park management has strategy to combat<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü threats, rehabilitation plan is in place, wire mesh<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
fencing is in progress for soft release which also<br />
Good<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
protects meadows that are developing for safe<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
guarding lions and minimization of man/ animal<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
conflicts where ecological boundaries are not<br />
secure fencing is imperative.<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Damage to human life within PA is not entitled for<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
is a key issue. Process of shifting villages which<br />
compensation domestic and or feral cattle control<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
has begun need be settled early<br />
Good ü<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />
| 140
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosys<br />
tem approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
Geographical situation being peculiar, net<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
working within the state has limited scope ot<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
Chambal sanctuary link with Rajasthan (Sawai<br />
Fair<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Madhavpur) under consideration.<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives .<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
For total area of 1268 km 2 there is a senior level<br />
official at the helm conservation of forests<br />
assisted by one Dy. C.F, Asst C.F., R.F.O (9),<br />
Foresters (35) and Fgs/ daily wagers (150). In<br />
near future staff for Education/ interpretation,<br />
research/monitoring will have to be planned.<br />
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
Compensation on account of land loss, is<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
inadequate and may become sensitive issue<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
other than this activity resources adequate and<br />
organized.<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />
141 |
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
Research and monitoring need higher priority,<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
scope for improvement in release of funds.<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
Poor<br />
Poor ü<br />
management of the site.<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
Fair<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Very good<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Sufficient for few tasks.<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />
| 142
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Few trained officers and field staff and hence<br />
Poor<br />
in the site.<br />
need impart trainings on priority.<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair ü<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
Not institutionalize but there are adequate<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
checks and balances.<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
There are number of committees for ecodevelopment<br />
collector over see’s people<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
related issue. However no statutory<br />
Fair ü<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
compliance under section 33 B, Wildlife (Prot.)<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
Act<br />
Good<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />
management.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />
143 |
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
No specific complaint redressed system,<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
however super vision of elected<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
representatives, access to press, institution of<br />
Lokayukta, Right to Information Act are<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
adequate tools.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
Having status of sanctuary from where people<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
have moved out options are limited but till<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
habitations are resettled and cushion provided<br />
Fair ü<br />
management.<br />
around PA problems will persist. Forage and<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
fodder supply is a key issue, resulting in semi<br />
Good<br />
by PA management.<br />
feral/ feral cattle.<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
Very good<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
Management/ Policy decisions without public<br />
Poor<br />
publicly available.<br />
debate, information not available in public<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
domain. Brochures, hand outs given in routine<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
way.<br />
Fair ü<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of Very good<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />
| 144
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor ü<br />
Presently there are no visitor services.<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance Good<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Very good<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
Population estimation exercise for major<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
carnivores/ herbivores under taken at regular<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
intervals by independent agency as well.<br />
Fair<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good ü<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Inventory adhoc, paucity of funds jeopardize<br />
maintenance schedules.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />
145 |
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Park management is planning reintroduction<br />
of Lions. In the absence of critical ecological<br />
status of wide range of species comments<br />
on all important species can not be<br />
generalized.<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
There is good conservation history and thus<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
good forest cover and presence of mature<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
tree crop shifting of villages will result in<br />
Fair<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
meadows and young crop.<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
Some threats are abated.<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor ü Visitor flow has not started as yet.<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />
| 146
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
Scope for improvement<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Structures like ‘Garhi’ within the core zone<br />
have excellent potentials and will have be<br />
handled with sensitivity.<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 21<br />
2. Planning 9 10 100 62<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 29<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 28<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 21<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 37<br />
Total 32 330 198<br />
Overall Score<br />
60%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />
147 |
| 148
13. Madhav National Park (MP)<br />
Madhav National Park (MP)<br />
149 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
The Park has a written management plan that<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
spells out values of the area. How ever, the fact<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
that, central theme of the Park, is ancient water<br />
Fair ü<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
reservoirs that supply water to the Shivpuri city<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
and there by the Park is life support system, has<br />
Good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
not been high lighted adequately. Scope to reintroduce<br />
Tiger ,the mega predator, also need be<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
Very good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
stressed.<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
Original area i.e. position till 1983,had lesser<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
threats, however, addition of area as also<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
development / up gradation of roads [NH 3 , NH<br />
Fair ü<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
27 ], Manikheda irrigation project ,legal / illegal<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
settlements adjacent to Township and area east<br />
Good<br />
assessed.<br />
central to original NP have lead to increase in<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
threats.(<strong>page</strong> 32,para 6.2) Unrestricted grazing of<br />
assessed.<br />
local and migratory cattle form Rajasthan , are<br />
Very good<br />
under stated and monitoring mechanism<br />
inadequate. Ingress of untreated town sewerage<br />
may pose danger.<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
Closeness to Shivpuri town as also two National<br />
Poor<br />
interference.<br />
high ways have made Park vulnerable.<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
Extenuation to four compt.s 129 to 132, have<br />
Fair ü<br />
interference.<br />
enhanced threats. Following recent amendment<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
to the Wild life (Protection ) Act, all the restrictive<br />
Good<br />
interference.<br />
measures are applicable to these areas and<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
alternative arrangements to meet requirements is<br />
Very good<br />
interference.<br />
mandatory.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Madhav National Park (MP)<br />
| 150
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Site has been a well recognized conservation<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
area since pre independence era as a "shikar<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
block ." Its proper place in biogeographic<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
zonation is recognized.<br />
Good ü<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
Management plan by Subharanjan Sen is in<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
place ;plan for period ending '05 has been<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive.<br />
extended by competent authority .Prior to this,<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
there were plans by Dutta (1977 - 82 ) and<br />
Good ü<br />
Plan.<br />
Sharma S.K. (1989 -94)<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />
participatory process.<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
Adequate provisions exist for revision.<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good ü<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Madhav National Park (MP)<br />
151 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
All values not documented, e. g. Crocodiles<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
,otters. This is potential Tiger habitat; in recent<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
past tiger had walked in accidentally and this had<br />
Fair ü<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
lead to creation of safari which was not in<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
consonance with provisions under the statutory<br />
Good<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
provisions. "Soft release" of tiger in sufficient<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
numbers and rigorous monitoring their of may be<br />
Very good<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
tried.<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
Eco development committees exist in 29 villages.<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
There is scope for involvement of Town council,<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü M.P.Tourism Corporations etc.<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
restoration.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
It has been noticed that there is infestation of<br />
weeds like Lantana and need for augment water<br />
resources. There is need to keep in place ,<br />
permanent vegetation monitoring plot mechanism<br />
by involving State Forest Research Institute/ local<br />
academic institutions . Area close to town in<br />
particular, needs restoration in a big way. There<br />
are signs of over grazing even within core zone<br />
and thus, closure plots are expected to be a tool<br />
for restoration in this area.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Madhav National Park (MP)<br />
| 152
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
Accidental straying of Tiger into the Park had<br />
culminated into an 'Animal Safari' which was<br />
contrary to legal provisions and now been almost<br />
closed down.. A soft release of adequate number<br />
of tigers, and close monitoring, as a new concept,<br />
need be pursued. Re - introduction of floral<br />
components that may be missing ,need also be<br />
tried.<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Park management has str(ltegy to combat<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü threats, rehabilitation plan is in place, wire mesh<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
fencing is in progress ; how ever, PA manager is<br />
Good<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
advised to see Hon. Mumbai High Court order, in<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
context of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Borivali<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
as also learn more about this park as a case<br />
study.<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
National Park lacks effective buffer, any damage<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
compensation. Domestic and lor feral cattle<br />
to human life within park is not entitled for<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
control is a key issue. Process of shifting villages<br />
Good<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
which has begun need be settled early.<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
Geographical situation being peculiar net working<br />
Poor ü<br />
landscape.<br />
within the state has l imitations.<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Fair<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Madhav National Park (MP)<br />
153 |
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Park with area of 375.23 km2 is headed by a<br />
senior level official, Conservator of forest, who is<br />
assisted by Dy.CF. Field staff includes<br />
sanctioned strength of 9 RFOs supported by<br />
Foresters [12], Forest guards and permanent<br />
muzdoors [48 +>100] and thus sanctioned<br />
strength isadequate but more vacancies at<br />
cutting edge. Need for focus on conservation<br />
education. Considering vulnerability , better<br />
deployment required.<br />
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
Resources adequate and organized.<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
Research and monitoring need higher priority ,<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
scope for improvement in release of funds.<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Madhav National Park (MP)<br />
| 154
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
Poor..<br />
Poor ü<br />
management of the site.<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
Fair<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Very good<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor ü Sufficient for few tasks.<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Few trained officers and field staff<br />
Poor ü<br />
in the site.<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Madhav National Park (MP)<br />
155 |
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
Not institutionalize but there are adequate<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
checks and balances.<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
There are no. of committees for eco -<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
development; Collector over see's people<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
related issues. How ever, no statutory<br />
Fair ü<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
compliance under section 33 B, Wild life<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
(prot.) Act.<br />
Good<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />
management.<br />
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
No specific complaint redressal system, how<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
ever, super vision of elected representatives,<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
access to press, institution of Lokayukta, Right<br />
to information Act are adequate tools.<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Madhav National Park (MP)<br />
| 156
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
Having status of National Park ,options are<br />
Poor ü<br />
management.<br />
limited but till habitations are resettled and<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
cushion provided around PA, problems will<br />
Fair<br />
management.<br />
persist. Forage and fodder supply is a key<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
issue, resulting in Semi feral \ feral cattle.<br />
Good<br />
by PA management.<br />
Urban poor is going to be a serious matter.<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
Very good<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
Management /Policy decisions without public<br />
Poor<br />
publicly available.<br />
debate information not available in public<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
domain .Brochures, hand outs given in routine<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
way.<br />
Fair ü<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of Very good<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Visitor services located out side PA. MP<br />
tourism Dept runs camping facilities , there is<br />
tastefully developed interpretation centre but<br />
still leaves scope for improvement; more<br />
signage,<br />
way side exhibits required. Park's contribution<br />
in sustained water supply to town, needs<br />
more<br />
emphasis. There is decline in visitors due to<br />
closure of safari.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Madhav National Park (MP)<br />
157 |
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
Population estimation exercise for major<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
carnivores/ herbivores under taken at regular<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
intervals but in a routine way.Increase in<br />
Fair ü<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
crocodiles should be a matter of concern as it<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
would be more predators with already<br />
Good<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
depleted wild herbivore.<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends Very good<br />
undertaken.<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Inventory ad hoc, paucity of funds jeopardize<br />
maintenance schedules<br />
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Park management, it is learnt ,is planning<br />
reintroduction of Tigers. In the absence of<br />
critical ecological status of wide range of<br />
species, comments on all important species<br />
can not be generelarised. Park is beset with<br />
problems.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Madhav National Park (MP)<br />
| 158
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
There is long conservation history and thus<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
good forest cover and presence of mature<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
tree crop. Shifting of villages will result in<br />
Fair<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
meadows and young crop.<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
Some threats are abated .Recommend study<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
of SGNP, Mumbai as case study on<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü abatement of threats due to urbanization.<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
As pointed out in paraSol above visitors<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü partly satisfied, there i's need to sensitize<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
and educate tourists through concerted<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
efforts<br />
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
Scope for improvement.<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Madhav National Park (MP)<br />
159 |
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Structures like old Baradari, Georges castle,<br />
watch towers have good potentials.<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 16<br />
2. Planning 9 10 100 62<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 26<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 26<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 22<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 33<br />
Total 32 330 185<br />
Overall Score<br />
56%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Madhav National Park (MP)<br />
| 160
14. Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
161 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
Plant and faunal resources of Mahananda WLS<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
is well documented in joint publication of<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
department and a NGO (NEWS)<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
Threats are known and but not systematically<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
documented nor regularly monitored<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
Grazing by domestic cattle and head load<br />
Poor<br />
interference.<br />
collection for N.T.F.P is there in southern fringe.<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Fair ü<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
| 162
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
The site is well demareated but zonation for<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
various activities not properly documented.<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
Management plan is there and valid, but not<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
prepared through participating process.<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
Yes, current management plan is valid and would<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
be revised on expiry. It requires some upgrading<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
also.<br />
Fair<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good ü<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
163 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
Floral resources of the sanctuary have improved<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
a lot along with some keystone animal spp.<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Fair<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good ü<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
Most of the participation of the stakeholders are<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
restricted to E.D.C works and some support to<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü protection duties.<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
Habitat restoration works are being carried out on<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
short term basis, monitoring works are also<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
limited in time frame.<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair ü<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
| 164
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
Some introduction of Hollock gibbon was done in<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
past and bear also released but planning and<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
monitoring is sketchy<br />
programmes are in place for<br />
Fair ü<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Regular patrolling is done by staff by vehicle and<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
on foot covering both day and night<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
By erecting electric fencing and maintenances of<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
been contained significantly.<br />
mobile squad, the human-wildlife conflict has<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
The extension of the sanctuary has been done to<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
cover corridor of wild elephant and making<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
comprehensive ecosystem unit.<br />
Fair<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
165 |
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
The staff engaged mainly to words specific<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
Whatever resources are available are managed<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
properly but require considerable augmentation.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
Some funds are released in time but there are<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
many instances of delayed release of fund while<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />
N.P.S.S. funds are regularly received other funds<br />
are adhoc allotments.<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
| 166
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
NGO’s contribution is limited to census and<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
education and awareness mainly.<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Major past of E.D.C. works are funded from<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü F.D.A its continuation is not guaranteed.<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Only a few field staff are specially trained in<br />
Poor<br />
in the site.<br />
wildlife management. More training is required.<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair ü<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
Most of the staff work towards specific<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
management objectives.<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
167 |
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
Public participation is limited to E.D.C works<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
and some support for protection duties.<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good<br />
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
Public complaints are heard and dealt with to<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
the extent possible however, all complaints<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
are not entered in the registers and monitored<br />
systematically for follow up.<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
Livelihood issues are addressed mainly<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
through E.D.C’s for which considerable fund<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
come from F.D.A, but this is on adhoc basis.<br />
Fair<br />
management.<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
| 168
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
The literatures are either scientific or general<br />
Poor<br />
publicly available.<br />
in nature and is not linked with management<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
accountability.<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Fair ü<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Visitor services are provided at two places<br />
mainly, while in Sukna it is adequate, in 7 th<br />
mile it is limited.<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
These are evaluated through regular<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
inspection of senior officers and routinely<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
reported.<br />
Fair<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good ü<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
169 |
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Regular inventory provides basis of action but<br />
funds are inadequate to deal with them<br />
appropriately<br />
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Elephant population is on increase. The tiger<br />
population is stable, but deer population is<br />
on decline.<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
The sanctuary has got a lot of pristine area,<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
which support a good amount of native<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
biodiversity.<br />
Fair<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
| 170
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
Except grazing and erosion by river other<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
threats have been contained.<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Area offers a view of pristine pressured<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü vegetation in valleys to most of the urban<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
visitors and is a good recreational spot and<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
adventure tourism wildlife sighting is<br />
Very good<br />
however limited.<br />
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
Panchayat and E.D.C members co-operate<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
with the staff of the sanctuary.<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Cultural heritages are attempted to be<br />
preserved through community centers<br />
created under eco-development and F.D.A<br />
schemes.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
171 |
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 17.5<br />
2. Planning 9 10 100 67.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 30<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 32.5<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 25<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 37.5<br />
Total 32 330 210<br />
Overall Score<br />
64%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />
| 172
15. Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />
Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />
173 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
Assessment and monitoring are to be done<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
regularly.<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Most threats systematically identified and Good ü<br />
assessed.<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
Ecotourism and safe passage to local fisherman<br />
Poor<br />
interference.<br />
are allowed.<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Fair<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good ü<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />
| 174
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
categorized.<br />
Fair<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
Periodicity of revision is proposed to be<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
introduced.<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Poor<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Fair<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />
175 |
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
Fishing route and berthing place of boats is done<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
in consultation with the fishermen.<br />
Stakeholders parti cipate in some planning. Fair ü<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
N.A<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />
adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair<br />
N.A.<br />
programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Good<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />
| 176
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
N.A.<br />
Good<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
Nearby there is Crocodile Sanctuary and Cinque<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
(Five) Island Sanctuary.<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Fair<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />
177 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
are never released in time.<br />
Poor<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
management of the site.<br />
Poor<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />
| 178
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Insufficient human resources.<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Need for training/capacity building for Marine<br />
Poor<br />
in the site.<br />
biology/Marine biodiversity/Coastal Zone<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
Management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
Poor<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />
179 |
Assessment criteria<br />
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA manage-<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
complaints.<br />
Poor<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively ment to most complaints. ?<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response Very good<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Fair ü<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />
| 180
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance Good ü<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Very good<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
Poor<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />
181 |
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Good ü<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Very good<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Poor<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Fair<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
have enhanced.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />
| 182
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
hostile.<br />
Poor<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
Poor<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Fair<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is Good<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Very good ü<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 22.5<br />
2. Planning 7 10 70 52.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 27.5<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 30<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 27.5<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 47.5<br />
Total 30 300 207.5<br />
Overall Score<br />
69%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />
183 |
| 184
16. Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
185 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically<br />
documented, assessed or monitored. Poor<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and<br />
monitored.<br />
Most Values systematically identified<br />
and assessed and monitored.<br />
All Values systematically identified<br />
and assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
1.2 Are the threats of the site well documented, assessed and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically<br />
documented, assessed.<br />
Poor<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Most threats systematically identified<br />
and assessed.<br />
All threats systematically identified<br />
and assessed.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human an biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition *Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and<br />
biotic interference.<br />
Poor ü<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
| 186
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified ( NP/WLS ) and categorized ( in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or<br />
categorized.<br />
Poor<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
categorized.<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Site identified correctly and<br />
systematically categorized with<br />
proper zonation plans.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in<br />
place.<br />
Poor<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Fair<br />
ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive<br />
Management Plan.<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science<br />
based Management Plan prepared<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place ofr systematic<br />
review and update of Management Poor<br />
Plan.<br />
Management Plan sometimes update<br />
in adhoc manner.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Management plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically<br />
Very good<br />
updated through a participatory<br />
process.<br />
*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
ü<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
187 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Poor<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for<br />
stakeholder participation in planning.<br />
Poor<br />
Stakeholder participation in some<br />
planning.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Stakeholder participation in most<br />
planning processes.<br />
Good<br />
Stakeholder routinely and<br />
systematically participation in all<br />
planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitual restoration programmers systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmers are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmers are in place for habitual Fair<br />
ü<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmers are<br />
generally well planned and<br />
Good<br />
monitored.<br />
Habitat restoration programmers are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored. Very good<br />
*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
| 188
2.7 Are reintroduction programmers systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmers are<br />
entirely adhoc. Poor ü<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmers are in place for<br />
reintroduction programmers.<br />
Reintroduction programmers are<br />
generally well planned and<br />
monitored.<br />
Reintroduction programmers are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Site has no adhoc protection<br />
strategy.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Good<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tickü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Site has been able in mitigate all<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
189 |
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Poor<br />
Site limited attempts to integrated the<br />
site into a network/ landscape.<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organized and managed with access to a adequate resoureces?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly<br />
allocated for PA management.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management but not<br />
systematically linked to management<br />
Fair<br />
objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific Good<br />
management.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly<br />
allocated towards achievement of<br />
specific management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
| 190
3.2 Are resources ( Vehicle, equipment, building etc. ) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tickü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly<br />
allocated for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management but not<br />
systematically linked to management<br />
objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly<br />
allocated towards achievement of<br />
specific management objectives.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
3.3 Are resources ( human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and<br />
funds are never released in time.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Some specific allocation for<br />
management of priority action and Fair<br />
some funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae<br />
systematically applied to decide most<br />
resource allocation and generally<br />
Good<br />
funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae<br />
systematically applied to decide<br />
complete allocation of resources for<br />
management and on-time release of<br />
funds.<br />
Very good<br />
*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
191 |
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
management of the site.<br />
Poor<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
management of the site but<br />
opportunities for collaboration are not<br />
systematically explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are<br />
systematically sought and negotiated<br />
for the management of many site<br />
level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are<br />
systematically sought and negotiated<br />
for the management of many site<br />
level activities.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources ( human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most<br />
tasks.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Resources insufficient for some<br />
tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
Resources insufficient for most<br />
tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most<br />
tasks.<br />
Very good<br />
*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
| 192
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline<br />
staff in the site.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Few trained officers and frontline<br />
staff, who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair<br />
A large number of trained officers<br />
and frontline staff, who are posted in Good<br />
the site.<br />
All trained managers and frontline<br />
staff posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff<br />
performance management and<br />
Poor<br />
management objectives.<br />
Some linkage between staff<br />
performance management and<br />
management objectives, but not<br />
Fair ü<br />
consistently or systematically<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most<br />
staff is directly linked to achievement Good<br />
of relevant management objectives.<br />
Performance management all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of<br />
relevant management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
193 |
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Opportunistic public participation in<br />
some aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic public participation in<br />
most aspects of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Comprehensive and systematic<br />
public participation in all important<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
complaints.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Complaints handling system<br />
operational but not responsive to<br />
individual issues and limited follow up<br />
Fair<br />
provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and<br />
responds effectively to most<br />
Good<br />
complaints.<br />
All complaints systematically logged<br />
in coordinated system an timely<br />
response provided with minimal<br />
repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
| 194
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Fair<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are<br />
addressed by PA management. Good<br />
Livelihood issues of resource<br />
dependent communities especially<br />
women are addressed effectively by<br />
PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
5. Outputs<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA<br />
management publicly available.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Publicly available information is<br />
general and has limited relevance to<br />
management accountability and the<br />
Fair<br />
condition of public assets.<br />
Publicly available information<br />
provides detailed insight into major<br />
management issues for most PAs or<br />
Good<br />
groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and<br />
condition of public assets in all PAs<br />
or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
195 |
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at<br />
odds with relevant PA category<br />
Poor ü<br />
and/or threaten PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities<br />
generally accord with relevant PA<br />
category and don't threaten PA<br />
Fair<br />
values.<br />
All Visitor services and facilities<br />
accord with relevant PA category Good<br />
and most enhance PA values.<br />
All Visitor services and facilities<br />
accord with relevant PA category<br />
and enhance PA values.<br />
Very good<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or<br />
routine reporting of management Poor ü<br />
related trends.<br />
Some evaluation and reporting<br />
undertaken but neither systematic Fair<br />
nor routine.<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine<br />
reporting of management related Good<br />
trends undertaken.<br />
Systematic evaluation and<br />
comprehensive reporting of<br />
management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
| 196
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure<br />
/ assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or<br />
maintenance schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and<br />
so is the maintenance schedule.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic inventory provides the<br />
basis for maintenance schedule but<br />
funds are inadequately made<br />
Good<br />
available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the<br />
basis for maintenance schedule and<br />
adequate funds ar e made available.<br />
Very good<br />
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threatened/ endangered<br />
species populations increasing, most Fair ü<br />
others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered<br />
species populations increasing, most Good<br />
others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or<br />
stable.<br />
Very good<br />
*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
197 |
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacing that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Poor<br />
Some biological communities likely to<br />
be able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most biological communities likely to<br />
be able to sustain native biodiversity. Good<br />
All biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated / minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated<br />
but have enhanced.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threats to the site have been<br />
abated.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most threats to the site have been<br />
abated.<br />
Good<br />
All threats to the site have been<br />
abated.<br />
Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not<br />
met.<br />
Poor<br />
Expectations of many visitors are<br />
met.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Expectations of most visitors are<br />
met.<br />
Good<br />
Good expectations of many visitors<br />
are met.<br />
Very good<br />
*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
| 198
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA managment?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/ adjacent communities<br />
are hostile.<br />
Poor<br />
Key neighbours/ communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair<br />
Most neighbours/ communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
All neighbours and communities<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken,<br />
of despite management efforts,<br />
deteriorating of cultural heritage Poor ü<br />
assets continues, or values are<br />
unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deteriorating continues.<br />
Fair<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deteriorating of assets Good<br />
is being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deteriorating of assets<br />
is being significantly redressed.<br />
Very good<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 12.5<br />
2. Planning 10 10 100 52.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 17.5<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 15.0<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 12.5<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 32.5<br />
Total 33 330 142.5<br />
Overall Score<br />
43%<br />
*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />
199 |
| 200
17. Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
201 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
Poor<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good ü<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
assessed.<br />
Poor<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good ü<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Poor<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Fair ü<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
| 202
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
categorized.<br />
Fair<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
Poor<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good ü<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
203 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Poor<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Fair<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
participation in planning.<br />
Poor<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />
adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair<br />
programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
| 204
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Good<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Poor<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Fair<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
205 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good ü<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
are never released in time.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
management of the site.<br />
Poor<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
| 206
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
in the site.<br />
Poor<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair ü<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
Poor<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
207 |
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
complaints.<br />
Poor<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good ü<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Fair<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Fair ü<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
| 208
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair ü<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance Good<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Very good<br />
5.3. Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
Poor<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good ü<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
209 |
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable. Fair<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Poor<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Fair<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
have enhanced.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor ü<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
| 210
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
hostile.<br />
Poor<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
Poor<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is Good<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Very good<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 25.0<br />
2. Planning 10 10 100 80.0<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 35.0<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 35.0<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 25.0<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 25.0<br />
Total 33 330 235<br />
Overall Score<br />
71%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />
211 |
| 212
18. National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />
National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />
213 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
The values of the site are well documented in the<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
management plan (2000-01-2009-10) but with<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
knowledge having been acquired and more field<br />
Fair ü<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
experience gained it needs immediate updating.<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
The values are being monitored by conducting<br />
Good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
estimation exercises of endangered and<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
threatened species particularly Gangetic dolphin,<br />
Very good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Mughar, Ghariyal and different species of turtles.<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
Threats to site are well documented in the<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
management plan but with passage of time each<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
threat now needs to be assessed to direct<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
management efforts to minimize it.<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good ü<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
National Chambal WLS falls in three States of<br />
Poor ü<br />
interference.<br />
U.P., M.P. and Rajasthan and in linear in shape<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
situated on a narrow strip all along Chambal<br />
Fair<br />
interference.<br />
river. Out of total length of 600 km before it<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
merges with Yamuna at Bhareh, 180 km. stretch<br />
Good<br />
interference.<br />
falls in U.P. on one side. Together with the<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
ravines the total area of the Sanctuary is 635<br />
interference.<br />
km 2 . There are 102 villages in UP alone with<br />
human population of over 55000 and cattle<br />
population of over 38000 in two districts of Agra<br />
and Etawa and at places agricultural land<br />
reaches right up to the river bank. The biotic<br />
interference is by way of grazing, fuel wood<br />
collection, collection of sand for bonafide use and<br />
at times for commercial purposes, fishing and<br />
Very good<br />
use of river water for all purposes. There are<br />
similar pressures on the other side of river in MP<br />
and Rajasthan. Sand mining by contractors is a<br />
major problem in M.P. Since private holdings<br />
have also been included inside PA boundary<br />
hence the encroachment can also not be ruled<br />
out. In spite of all these pressures there is good<br />
presence of rare/threatened species except in<br />
some parts of Etawa district.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />
| 214
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Due to inclusion of private lands inside the<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
sanctuary boundary there is great difficulty in<br />
Fair ü<br />
categorized.<br />
categorization in terms of zones but still core,<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
buffer, tourism, ecorestoration and<br />
Good<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
ecodevelopment zones have been categorized in<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
the management plan which are difficult to<br />
Very good<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
implement.<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
The PA has a comprehensive management plan<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
for the period 2000-01 to 2009-10. This is the first<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive.<br />
management plan prepared for the P.A.<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
This is the first management plan of the PA which<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
needs up dating and systematization based on<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
recent surveys, studies and experiences gained.<br />
Fair ü<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
Good<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated Very good<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
Because of the remoteness of the site, fear of<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
outlaws living perpetually in the ravines & low<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
consumption level of local people and<br />
Fair ü<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
compatible way of life,the biodiversity values of<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
the site are still safeguarded in spite of heavy<br />
Good<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
biotic pressure.<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
Very good<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />
215 |
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
There is little participation of Stakeholders other<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
than the only NGO 'Chambal Conservation<br />
Stakeholders parti cipate in some planning. Fair ü Foundation' and the only tourist resort at Bah is<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
the Chambal Safari lodge run by a very<br />
Good<br />
processes.<br />
committed husband-wife team of nature lovers.<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
There is constant interaction with this NGO/lodge<br />
Very good<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
on most of the planning activities.<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
There is little scope for habitat restoration<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
programmes except some soil and moisture<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair ü<br />
conservation works and plantations of grasses<br />
and fodder species in the ravines.<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />
adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for reintroduction<br />
programmes.<br />
Fair<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
ü<br />
The only reintroduction programmes being<br />
undertaken is raring of Ghariyal hatchlings at<br />
Kukrail (Lucknow) from eggs taken from Chambal<br />
river and reintroducing them back into the river<br />
after their size is considered safe from predators.<br />
This is being done for a long time now and has<br />
been very successful. The breeding success of<br />
this species was less than 1% in nature which<br />
has gone up to 80%. The population of Ghariayal<br />
in Chambal now needs to be closely monitored<br />
specially for male female ration of reintroduced<br />
animals which is said to be very disturbing in<br />
term of low breeding male populations.<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
The site can be protected by constant boat<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü patrolling and patrolling by beat guards in their<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
beats on foot. There are two motor boats<br />
Good<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
available but at least two more are required.<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
Intelligence collection is another activity that can<br />
effective protec tion strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
work here which is being done to some extent.<br />
Vigilance from watch towers is also kept.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />
| 216
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
In some areas it has been possible due to<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
areas (Etawa) this has not been possible.<br />
constant vigil by Range staff but in some other<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
Beyond Panchnada (7 km. down stream of<br />
Good<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
conflance with Yamuna), where the boundary of<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
WLS terminates, Yamuna river is leased out for<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
fishing which creates many problems for the<br />
management and there has been a considerable<br />
decline in Mughar and Ghariyal population<br />
Very good<br />
beyond Bareh and Gangetic dolphine have<br />
almost vanished from this 7 km. stretch. Some 5<br />
km. stretch of river beyond boundary of WLS<br />
needs to be secured as buffer by declaring it an<br />
eco sensitive zone under EPA.<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
The site is integrated into a large ecological<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
network by creating Sanctuaries along Chambal<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
river in all the three states of U.P., M.P. and<br />
Fair<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Rajasthan that is how these Sanctuaries have<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
been named as National Chambal Sanctuaries of<br />
Good ü<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
each State. Unfortunately there is no effective<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
coordination among them. A Conservation<br />
landscape.<br />
Authority for all of them is urgently needed with<br />
representation for Govt. of <strong>India</strong>, WII and BNHS<br />
Very good<br />
and others apart from the CWLW and PA<br />
managers of all the 3 States as also the<br />
enthusiastic local NGO (Chambal Conservation<br />
Foundation).<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />
217 |
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
In spite of 40% vacancies in the field staff the<br />
available personnel are well organized and<br />
managed. They have good number of arms but<br />
due to presence of dacoits in ravines, there is<br />
danger of the weapons being snatched by them.<br />
Wireless sets are not in working order. The most<br />
effective staff for patrolling are the boat men who<br />
know every nook and corner of the sanctuary but<br />
maximum vacancies are among them only. They<br />
need more motor boats for effective control.<br />
Other resources like search lights, binoculars,<br />
GPS etc. are available. The closer supervision by<br />
top management of the sanctuary is greatly<br />
lacking. Etawa Range needs more man power<br />
and efforts.<br />
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
There are 2 Gypsy, one Bolero and 2 motor<br />
cycles, 66 fire arms, 2 GPS, one camera, 4 motor<br />
boats (3 engines), 7 fiber boats, one monoscope,<br />
one binocular, one search light and 14 wireless<br />
sets but out of them wireless sets are out of<br />
order, few boats are old and need replacement,<br />
more motor boats and motor cycles are needed<br />
and fire arms can't be used due to law and order<br />
problem. Buildings are old and need repairs.<br />
Four wheelers need more frequent field<br />
deployment.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />
| 218
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
Financial allocations for last 5 years under State<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
budget and CSS (Development of NP & WLS)<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
has been as under :<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair ü Year State W.B.<br />
CSS (GOI)<br />
in time.<br />
budget Forestry<br />
Project Sd. Utilized<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
2001-02 81.99 36.86 13.55 8.90<br />
2002-03 80.40 48.85 9.00 9.00<br />
2003-04 95.17 0.10 18.05 14.05<br />
2004-05 94.91 - 25.90 20.66<br />
2005-06 98.13 - 26.20 26.20<br />
Bulk of State budget is for salaries and<br />
allowances. The share of centrally sponsored<br />
scheme though small is important for habitat<br />
improvement and protection but the scale is too<br />
small. Less expenditure in most years is due to<br />
late release by State Govt. Human resource is<br />
40% deficient as per sanctioned strength. The<br />
deficiency is mostly in vital frontline staff.<br />
For 2006-07, 41 lakh has been sanctioned under<br />
CSS and 29 lakh has so far been released.<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
management of the site.<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Chambal Conservation Foundation a local NGO<br />
is the only one which supports the management<br />
by providing its boats, manpower etc. at time of<br />
urgency. They also provide intelligence in many<br />
cases. There is no other support from any other<br />
NGO.<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor ü Neither the human nor the financial resource is<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
sufficient looking at the level of problems and<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
threats.<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />
219 |
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
The training in wildlife management is poor at all<br />
Poor<br />
in the site.<br />
levels. Forest Guards have got their training in<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
the traditional forestry subjects. WLW has<br />
Fair ü<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
experience of working in Corbett TR.<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
Most of staff performance management is<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
manpower objectives.<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
There is hardly any public participation in PA<br />
Poor ü<br />
management.<br />
management except sometimes giving<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
intelligence and helping staff in emergencies.<br />
Fair<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Involvement of local NGO (CCF) in<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
management is positive and satisfactory.<br />
Good<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />
management.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />
| 220
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
Complaints are routinely handled and there is<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
neither follow-up nor responsiveness.<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
Except that the existing rights mentioned in<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
the Management Plan are allowed with<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
restrictions and local people are engaged as<br />
Fair ü<br />
management.<br />
labourers in the departmental works no other<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
livelihood issues are addressed.<br />
Good<br />
by PA management.<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
Very good<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
Other than the information given in the<br />
Poor<br />
publicly available.<br />
management plan, the information made<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
available to people is though the well<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
prepared brochure. The only local NGO (CCF)<br />
Fair ü<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
is also helping in dissemination of information.<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of Very good<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />
221 |
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
There are few visitors due to law and order<br />
problem. The only resort Chambal Safari<br />
Lodge at Bah gets some quality foreign<br />
visitors specially bird watchers who has good<br />
guides and provides quality visitor services to<br />
the tourists.<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
Except the routine monthly progress reports<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
and occasional census trends no other<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
management related trends are evaluated.<br />
Fair ü<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
The present evaluation of Management<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
Effectiveness will be first of its kind to be done<br />
Good<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
by Govt. of <strong>India</strong> on IUCN guidelines.<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends Very good<br />
undertaken.<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
Very little funds are available for maintenance<br />
of infrastructure/assets. The maintenance<br />
schedule is prescribed in account rules of the<br />
State. It is only out of assistance provided by<br />
Govt. of <strong>India</strong> that minimum possible<br />
maintenance is done.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />
| 222
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The population of Ghariyal, Mughar and<br />
Gangetic dolphin has substantially increased<br />
after creation of PA. In certain stretches after<br />
confluence of Chambal with Yamuna<br />
populations have gone down due to mining<br />
and fishing outside sanctuary. The<br />
population of 8 species of turtle, found here<br />
has also gone up. The number of migratory<br />
birds is also increasing season after season.<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
The Sanctuary has been created for giving<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
protection mainly to aquatic animals found in<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
Chambal such as Ghariyal, Mughar,<br />
Fair<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Gangetic Dolphin, different species of turtles<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
and fishes, otters and avifauna. Though the<br />
Good ü<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
mix of age classes is satisfactory but there is<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
a field observation that in Ghariyals breeding<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
male population is too low due to<br />
Very good<br />
reintroduction of artificially bred hatchlings.<br />
This needs to be confirmed by a research<br />
project.<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
Threats have considerably been minimized<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
but due to continuing threats from other bank<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
of Chambal in M.P. the threat level remains<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü high.<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Few visitors go to this Sanctuary due to law<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
and order problem but those who visit get full<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü satisfaction.<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />
223 |
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
There is no antagonism as such and due to<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
simple life style of villagers and their low<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
consumption level the damage is minimum<br />
Fair ü<br />
supportive.<br />
compared to the number of villages. This<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
can at the best be termed as passive<br />
Good<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
support but there is hardly any active<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
support from neighbouring communities.<br />
Very good<br />
of PA management.<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Chambal river, its clean water, the ravines<br />
and the age old villages and their down to<br />
earth tradition are the real heritage assets<br />
which will remain protected so long as the<br />
modern development concept is not thrust<br />
upon them.<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 15.0<br />
2. Planning 10 10 90 57.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 25.0<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 25.0<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 20.0<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 30.0<br />
Total 33 320 172.5<br />
Overall Score<br />
54%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />
| 224
19. Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
225 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
Park encompasses semi moist deciduous forest<br />
Poor ü<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
and is representative of transient bio geographic<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
zonation (Teak and Sal forests / Gray and Red<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Jungle fowl /Clawless otters ) Important values of<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
the area need be studied and documented. Close<br />
Good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
to park there is old water body which supports<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
aquatic fauna is a major tourist attraction to an<br />
Very good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
average person.<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
Park does not have buffer , includes one large<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
and three small villages inside. Naxal activity<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
present and hence law and order problem.<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Threats perceived and documented<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good ü<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
As indicated above, fringe areas prone to<br />
Poor<br />
interference.<br />
pressures ; Core area is comparatively free.<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
Conservation since 1975, has given good<br />
Fair<br />
interference.<br />
protection and section of locals have turned<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
dedicated conservationist.<br />
Good ü<br />
interference.<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
Very good<br />
interference.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
| 226
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
A rethinking on Extent of Park and zonaton is<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
called for ; need to create buffer zone through<br />
Fair ü<br />
categorized.<br />
conservation community reserves . Govt lands<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
within Itia doh reservoir are located strategically,<br />
Good<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
to serve as a corridor at the landscape level to<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
provide link through Rajoli / Chich garh into<br />
Very good<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Gadhchiroli forests.<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
Properly written and duly approved plan exists .<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
Process of up gradation to commence without<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
waiting for completion of present plan period ;<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
there is provision for updating.<br />
Fair<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good ü<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
227 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
Potentially rich habitats of number of key<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
elements are out side PA i.e. Sarus crane and<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
otters , Vultures , heronries etc. Large number of<br />
Fair<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
floral / faunal elements of relevance are<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
being protected but not documented. Partnership<br />
Good ü<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
with Academic Institutions in vicinity<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
recommended.<br />
Very good<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
Though there were no provisions earlier ,new<br />
Poor ü<br />
participation in planning.<br />
amendments provide scope for consultations.<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
CWLW to ensure better participation of local<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
stake holders.<br />
Good<br />
processes.<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
Very good<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
Water shortage considered as a limiting factor<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
and suitable measures taken<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
| 228
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
There is no need for at this stage and hence not<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
relevant.<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for<br />
Fair ü<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Site has good strategy.<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Good<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Site has few human wild life conflicts.<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
Not integrated into wider net work ; urgent need<br />
Poor ü<br />
landscape.<br />
for efforts in this direction.<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Fair<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
229 |
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
Dy .Conservator, assisted by Asst .Conservator<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
and field staff of thirty persons for 133 km2 is in<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
conformity with staff norms but additional staff for<br />
monitoring , out reach , extension / education is<br />
to management objectives.<br />
recommended.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly alloc ated<br />
Resources are limited but are organized and are<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
managed effectively. As against the expected<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />
funds under plan out lays , actual receipts to the<br />
tune of 30 to 50 % during last three financial<br />
to management objectives.<br />
years.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of s pecific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
Release of Central assistance not in time for<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
optimal utilization ; no provisions for essential<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />
items like vaccination ,crime detection training ,<br />
secret fund ,boundary demarcation<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
| 230
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
Local community helps in protection and take<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
part in population estimation exercises.<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor ü Inadequacy in the sphere of protection ,<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
research, monitoring , Education.<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Non of the staff has under gone any regular wild<br />
Poor ü<br />
in the site.<br />
life training.<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
231 |
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
Present system has no such arrangement but<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
there are checks and balances.<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
Limited participation but lot of scope in the<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
field of monitoring , research.<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good<br />
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
System of Lokayukta ,access to press, close<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
supervision by elected representatives and<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />
now right to information act are adequate for<br />
redressal of complaints.<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
| 232
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
FDAs are in place in adjoining areas. There<br />
Poor ü<br />
management.<br />
scope for greater Eco development activities.<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Fair<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
Very good<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
assets.<br />
Fair<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
Important information like Management plan is<br />
not made available as a matter of routine,<br />
release of funds and its utilization is also not<br />
published. Broachers or posters or handouts<br />
given as apart of extension material normally<br />
dose not give management related<br />
information.<br />
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Visitor services like camp site, forest rest<br />
houses are located out side the National park,<br />
is a positive point. Provision of local guides<br />
has started recently and is a step in right<br />
direction. There is scope to promote eco<br />
tourism involving villagers on the Park fringe<br />
,converting existing garden, into MPCA with<br />
involvement MPCA committee Nagzira , into “<br />
Ex situ Plant conservation centre ”.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
233 |
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
Management trends like forest cover,<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
population estimates of some key species etc.<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
being reported but these are inadequate.<br />
Fair ü<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
Good<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends Very good<br />
undertaken.<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
Inventory maintenance is ‘ad hoc ‘<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Only major faunal species are monitored ,no<br />
focus on plants ,lower vertebrates ; only<br />
fringe area under pubic gaze. There are<br />
interesting ,birds like Sarus crane , vultures<br />
and other aquatic birds ,animals like otters<br />
that need be seen regularly.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
| 234
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
Most biological communities will be<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
sustained.<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Fair<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
As seen form records threats still exist<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
;relocation processes have well begun and<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
need be expedited. Actual relocation<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü responsibility of relocation be vested in<br />
All threats to the site have been abated.<br />
Revenue commissioner / Territorial Dy.<br />
Very good<br />
Conservator.<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
PA being a National Park, and there being<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
no buffer zone ,there no scope for sharing<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
resources. How ever , there many<br />
Fair<br />
supportive.<br />
conservation oriented persons / N.G.O. s<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
who are providing support; there is scope to<br />
Good ü<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
institutionalize their good will.<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
Very good<br />
of PA management.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
235 |
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
Poor<br />
No reports of heritage sites within the PA.<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Fair<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is Good ü<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Very good<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 20<br />
2. Planning 9 10 100 56<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 28<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 23<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 20<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 36<br />
Total 32 320 183<br />
Overall Score<br />
57%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
| 236
20. Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />
Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />
237 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
*The values of the site is documented<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
The threats are being documented to a large<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
extend<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good ü<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
The site has got biotic interference, but has<br />
Poor<br />
interference.<br />
reduced<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Fair<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good ü<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />
| 238
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
1. The zonation has been done, in terms of Core<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
Zone and buffer zone.<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
2. A map in this regard is available<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
1. Management Plan is available<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
2. The current Management plan 2006-07 to<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive.<br />
2010-11. There is no indication that the MP has<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
been passed by the Government<br />
Good<br />
Plan.<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
The Mp is routinely and systematically updated.<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />
239 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
There are a large number of species which are<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
threatened. All the species cannot be safe<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
guarded. This approach has yet to come<br />
Fair<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good ü<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
Process has been initiated to form JFMC and<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
FDAs.<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü Hence full official participation is yet to be started.<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
This has been done very systematically and<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
successfully. It is a continuous process<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />
| 240
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
There is no plan for reintroduction programme<br />
Poor ü<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
yet.<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for<br />
Fair<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
They have a strategy, which has been working<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
well, the establishment of the village protection<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
squad.<br />
Good<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
The measures are taken, but not in all cases.<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />
241 |
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
1. The sanctuary has been carved out of the<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
existing reserve forest, hence the natural and<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
geomorphologic setting are contiguous.<br />
Fair<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
2. The sanctuary and the surrounding ecological<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
set-up has been covered by declaring the whole<br />
Good<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
area as project elephant site<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
Very good ü<br />
landscape.<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
Personnel are well organized<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
The infra-structural resources are well organized.<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
Broadly they are being utilized for achieving<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
specific Management objectives.<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives .<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />
| 242
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
Finances are linked with priority action.<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good ü<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
There are few cases of good NGO support.<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good ü<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />
243 |
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
in the site.<br />
Poor<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair ü<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
There is a linkage, but not always this happens<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
<strong>Full</strong> public participation is yet to be<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
materialized.<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />
| 244
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
There is a mechanism of addressing public<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
complain.<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
A number of program is associated with the<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
livelihood of he people.<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Fair<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
A web-site is being generated. There is no<br />
Poor<br />
publicly available.<br />
good mechanism of the dissipation of the PA<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
information to the public.<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Fair<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good ü<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />
245 |
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Process of establishment of the facilities for<br />
tourism has been initiated now.<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
The discussion on the Management related<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
trends are done regularly.<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good ü<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />
| 246
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
As per the record the elephant population<br />
has gone done from 429 in 2002 to 383 in<br />
2005.<br />
There is no systematic records of other<br />
threatened species. A report (2002) of the<br />
Tiger population of Meghayala is available.<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
The records showed, the age structure of<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
elephant, which seems will not jeopardize<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
the native biodiversity.<br />
Fair ü<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
Is being minimized to a great extend.<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Initiative has now been taken<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />
247 |
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
There is good support form the neighbour<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Though the cultural components are well<br />
identified and documented. But the cultural<br />
factors in the area are being well recognized<br />
and respected.<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 22.5<br />
2. Planning 9 10 90 82.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 35<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 32.5<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 27.5<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 37.5<br />
Total 32 320 237.5<br />
Overall Score<br />
72%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />
| 248
21. Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />
Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />
249 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
Poor<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
The sanctuary has three different main accesses<br />
Poor ü<br />
assessed.<br />
because of its location at the tri-junction of three<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
districts. It is spread in four Forest Divisions. The<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
area also has started getting the pressure of<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
extremist movements.<br />
Good<br />
assessed.<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
Very good<br />
assessed.<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Poor<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Fair ü<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />
| 250
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
categorized.<br />
Fair<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
Poor<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />
251 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Poor<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
participation in planning.<br />
Poor<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair ü<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />
Not applicable.<br />
Poor<br />
adhoc.<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair<br />
programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />
| 252
2.8 Does the site have an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Good<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Poor<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organized and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
As against sanctioned strength of 24 staff ( RFO<br />
Poor ü<br />
for PA management.<br />
and below) only six are in position for the PA<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
area of 591 sq km. There is only one RFO for the<br />
entire area.<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />
253 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organized and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
One old jeep and one or two old buildings<br />
specially allocated. The terrain is difficult. River is<br />
the main access. One will have to come from<br />
three different directions which may take 4-5<br />
days to get a good feel of the sanctuary. Under<br />
such situations more resources are needed for<br />
effective protection<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
Very poor funding support and delays in release<br />
Poor ü<br />
are never released in time.<br />
of funds. This has been discussed in the<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
covering report.<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
Very good<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
management of the site.<br />
Poor<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />
| 254
3.5 Does PA manager consider resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Very few staff [6 in all] hardly any staff mrmbers<br />
Poor ü<br />
in the site.<br />
live within the PA. Subsistence and livelihood<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
removals specially of bamboo was noticed.<br />
Fair<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
Poor<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />
255 |
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
complaints.<br />
Poor<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Fair ü<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all Pas or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />
| 256
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor ü<br />
Hardly any visitor facility exists.<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance Good<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Very good<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
Poor<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />
257 |
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Good<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Very good<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacing that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Poor<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
have enhanced.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor ü There is neither sighing of animals nor<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
appropriate facilities forland / river based<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
nature tourism.<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />
| 258
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
hostile.<br />
Poor<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
Poor<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is Good<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Very good<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 12.5<br />
2. Planning 9 10 90 47.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 17.5<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 25<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 17.5<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 27.5<br />
Total 32 320 147.5<br />
Overall Score<br />
46%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />
259 |
| 260
22. Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
261 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
The value has been identified and recorded.<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
All the threats are well documented and<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
assessed.<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good ü<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
Biotic interference in the form of high cattle<br />
Poor ü<br />
interference.<br />
population is a serious issue. Human interference<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
in the form of trespassing and fishing exists.<br />
Fair<br />
interference.<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
| 262
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Site properly identified, but not properly<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
Identified.<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
Comprehensive management plan exists<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
It is done regularly.<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
263 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
It does successfully safe guard the interest of<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
threatened biodiversity.<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Fair<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
Stake holders take part in the planning process<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good ü<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
Habitat restoration programme is done, as and<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
when required.<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair ü<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
| 264
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
Reintroduction of the rhino in Manas NP is in the<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
process. The Rhino of Pobitora is suppose to be<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
taken for the purpose<br />
programmes are in place for<br />
Fair<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
It has a very good protection strategy. Rhino<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
travel to outside the PA, hence protection has to<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
be given around 200 sq km area, by the staff<br />
Good<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
meant for 38 sq km.<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Mitigation measure is by and large effective.<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
All affords are being taken to integrated the<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
relevant areas into an ecological continuity area<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Fair<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
265 |
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
It is done in a very organized manner<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good ü<br />
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
This has done systematically and well organized<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
Resources are linked to priority action. There is a<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
draw back in the timing in the release of fund<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good ü<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
| 266
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
NGO supports substantially.<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
The resource can be sufficient, as the expansion<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü of the area if the site and increase of the<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
population of the threatened species.<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Some trained man power is available.<br />
Poor<br />
in the site.<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good ü<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
Yes, very sucessfully<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
267 |
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
Some public participation in management is<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
partially directly and more indirectly.<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good<br />
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
Yes, with partial arrangement<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
They partially addresses the livelihood issue<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
of the fringe villagers.<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
| 268
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Fair<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good ü<br />
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
All facilities are not available, requires much<br />
more, being close to capital city Guwahati.<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
Poor<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
269 |
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable. Very good ü<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
Good management in this respect. Native<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
biodiversity is supported.<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Fair<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
| 270
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
Cattle grazing is yet to be stopped.<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
By and large expectation met<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
Support is good<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
It is protected<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
Poor<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Fair<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is Good ü<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
271 |
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 20<br />
2. Planning 9 10 100 82.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 32.5<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 37.5<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 32.5<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 45<br />
Total 32 330 250<br />
Overall Score<br />
76%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />
| 272
23. Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
273 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
Management plan of the Park ,Chapter 1 Section<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
2, high lights Biological ,Ecological, Archeological<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
as also recreational /cultural values .How ever,<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
there is scope to enlarge the same so as to<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
include lower plant forms, non vertebrates / lower<br />
Good ü<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
faunal elements.<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
Very good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
Section 16, Chapter III, <strong>page</strong> 27to 33 deals with<br />
Poor<br />
asses sed.<br />
varied aspects, giving detail account. in response<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
to PIL , Hon High court, Mumbai Bench has given<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
directives in 1997 to the State Govt. to take<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
appropriate time bound action.<br />
Good ü<br />
assessed.<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
Very good<br />
assessed.<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
Following the Hon High court Mumbai's directives<br />
Poor<br />
interference.<br />
in May 1997, human threats to the site has been<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
curbed effectively and many site has been freed<br />
Fair ü<br />
interference.<br />
from most of the disturbances.However, enclaves<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
of Yeur, Chena etc. within NP, will continue to be<br />
Good<br />
interference.<br />
foci of disturbance.Control on pilgrims to<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
Kanhneri caves is must.<br />
Very good<br />
interference.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
| 274
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
This National Park is unique, being located in a<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
mega police and is surrounded by concrete<br />
Fair ü<br />
categorized.<br />
jungle. Keeping in view this unique position<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
zonation provided in the plan is appropriate.<br />
Good<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Formation of Tungareshwar sanctuary ,in<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
northern region has given desired buffer zone.<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
The south - western portion continues to be<br />
vulnerable but regular wall, when completed, will<br />
minimize people-park conflicts. Reserve forests<br />
along boundary of Nagala block need be bought<br />
Very good<br />
under administrative control of Park manager.<br />
Multiple use zone out side PA i.e. Krishna giri<br />
Upwan is useful. Similar arrangements along the<br />
eastern region need be developed to<br />
accommodate potential eco tourism from Thana<br />
side<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
There is a comprehensive plan<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
Plan has been written in conformity of guide lines<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
and has been duly approved by competent<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
authority. There is provision for revision.<br />
Fair<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good ü<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
275 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
Comprehensive information on threatened<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
species yet to be completed, how ever, present<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
safe guards are adequate.<br />
Fair<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good ü<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
During plan drafting phase, involvement of stake<br />
Poor ü<br />
participation in planning.<br />
holders, was not provided for in the system. More<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
over, location of park within mega city, makes<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
identification of "resource dependent" stake<br />
Good<br />
processes.<br />
holders and satisfaction of their needs is difficult.<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
Very good<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
Management plan covers this issue adequately<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
and in addition, habitat restoration after removal<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
of encroachments, has been provided for and<br />
tackled effectively. Soil and moisture<br />
restoration.<br />
conservation and grassland management plan<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
has been provided [ Table 31, 32 ] but funds not<br />
Good ü<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
available accordingly.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
Some of key elements expected in this bio<br />
Poor ü<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
geographic zone , need be re introduced ,Le<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
Rusty spotted cat, Otters. Presently there no<br />
planned approach.<br />
programmes are in place for<br />
Fair<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
| 276
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
:park management has excellent strategy to<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
protect and has given gOOQ results during<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
recent past.<br />
Good ü<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Area prone to high level of conflicts but effective<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
geographic film"Leopards of Bolly wood'}<br />
mitigation measures in place. {National<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
Park located partly on Island and partly on main<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
land; except for northern portion, it is surrounded<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
by Urban sprawl thus limiting scope. With<br />
Fair<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
form~tion of Tungareshwar sanctuary link with<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
Tansa sanctuary safe guarded .<br />
Good ü<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
Very good<br />
landscape.<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Comparatively small area ( 103.78 km2 ) is under<br />
direct control of a senior level officer assisted by<br />
over 200 staff ( section 30 of plan )Primary<br />
concern , how ever ,is multiple use area and<br />
tourism related issues. Personnel need be<br />
assigned for monitoring and research activities in<br />
the National Park area.<br />
Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
277 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
Compared to other areas in the state this Park<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
has better resources.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
There is scope for improvement in adequate and<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
timely release of funds.<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
During recent past there has been considerable<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
participation of N.G.o. in Eco restoration, Soil<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
and moisture conservation ,Interpretation and<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
education activities.<br />
Fair<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good ü<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
| 278
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
As compared to need, actual releases<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü inadequate.<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Scope to deploy suitable trained staff for varied<br />
Poor ü<br />
in the site.<br />
jobs like zoo management , Nature<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
interpretation and education in the multiple use<br />
Fair<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
zone ; Coordination with and active support at<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
institutional level to N.G.O.s like B.N.I-l.S .is<br />
Good<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
recommended to bridge gap in the sphere of<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
monitoring and research.<br />
Very good<br />
posted in the site.<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
Performance link with management objectives<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
has not been institutionalized but there are<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
checks and balances in the existing system.<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
In recent past, Park management has<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
mobilized public support for the cause of<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
conservation through tree planting in lands<br />
Fair<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
freed from encroachments ,water harvesting,<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
interpretation and education (British Gas /<br />
Good ü<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
BNHS initiative )<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />
management.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
279 |
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
As indicated vide para 4 . 5 of state level<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
evaluation.<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
Because of Urban back ground , issue is not<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
directly relevant.<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
This area is in lime light due to its locatioh ,<br />
Poor<br />
publicly available.<br />
there is good out reach activity but scope to<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
improve in giving out information on key<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
management issues.<br />
Fair ü<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of Very good<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
| 280
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Two interpretation centers and Tiger<br />
Orientation center next to Tiger safari meets<br />
requirements to some extent; BNHS center<br />
also plays complimentary role. Additional<br />
facilities near Kanhen caves recommended.<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
Population of major carnivores and herbivores<br />
Poor ü<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
is monit9red at periodic intervals and there is<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
non other system in place .FSI forest cover<br />
Fair<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
mapping is useful tool<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
Good<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends Very good<br />
undertaken.<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
Inventory maintenance is 'ad hoc'<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
281 |
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
As indicated in 5.3 above , only major flag<br />
ship species are monitored. Population of<br />
Leopards has reached optimal capacity.<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
Natural mix within the Park area is close to<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
desired mix of age and spacing.<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Fair<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
Most threats to site are abated.<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Good expectations of many of the visitors<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
are met.<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
| 282
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
Illegal settlements have been and will be<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
threat to the Park .High rise building which<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
house non forest resource dependent<br />
Fair<br />
supportive.<br />
population need be involved to gain their<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
support.<br />
Good ü<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
Very good<br />
of PA management.<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Geographically Kanheri caves are<br />
surrounded by Park and thus it assists<br />
conservation of our rich cultural heritage.<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 22<br />
2. Planning 9 10 100 72<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 35<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 31<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 23<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 44<br />
Total 32 330 227<br />
Overall Score<br />
69%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />
283 |
| 284
24. Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
285 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
Poor<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
assessed.<br />
Poor<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good ü<br />
1.3 Has the settlement process under sections 19-26A of the WPA been Completed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neither the notification u/s 18 or 35 issued nor<br />
the settlement process u/s 19-26-A or 66(3)<br />
completed and the site is treated as deemed<br />
PA.<br />
The notification u/s 18/35 issued or deemed to<br />
have been issued but the settlement process<br />
u/s 19-26 or 66(3) not completed.<br />
Preliminary notification u/s 18/35 issued or<br />
deemed to have been issued, the settlement<br />
process completed but the final notification u/s<br />
26-A or 35 as the case may be not issued.<br />
The final notification u/s 26-A or 35(4) issued or<br />
deemed to have been issued after<br />
extinguishment of all rights over the area<br />
constituting the PA<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
This is a new question which has been added<br />
in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
| 286
1.4 Is there any human settlement within the PA?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human settlement with<br />
increasing human and cattle population<br />
causing deterioration to biodiversity.<br />
The site has a stable human and cattle<br />
population.<br />
The site has human settlement within the PA<br />
but the same are under the process of<br />
relocation outside the PA.<br />
The site has no human and cattle settlement<br />
within the PA.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
1.5(1.3) Is the site free from outside human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
ü<br />
This is a new question which has been added<br />
in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
This question was 1.3 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />
Poor<br />
interference from outside the PA.<br />
revised format.<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interference from outside the PA.<br />
Fair ü<br />
The site has little human and biotic interference<br />
from outside the PA.<br />
Good<br />
The site has no human and biotic interference<br />
from outside the PA.<br />
Very good<br />
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Has the external boundary of the site (NP/WLS) been precisely described and notified?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Boundary of the site not described precisely. Poor ü This is a new question which has been added<br />
Boundary not described but the extant of PA<br />
described with help of plot numbers of the Fair<br />
in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />
village cadastral map.<br />
Boundary described with help of prismatic<br />
compass bearings and inter pillar distances.<br />
Good<br />
Boundary described by latitude and longitude<br />
of points of deviations of the boundary.<br />
Very good<br />
2.2 Has the Boundary of the PA been properly demarcated on the ground?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Boundary of the site not demarcated precisely<br />
This is a new question which has been added<br />
Poor ü<br />
and distinctly on the ground.<br />
in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />
Boundary of the site demarcated with help of<br />
temporary pillars/mounds.<br />
Fair<br />
Boundary of the site demarcated with help of<br />
permanent pillars.<br />
Good<br />
The entire boundary of the site fenced<br />
permanently.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
287 |
2.3 Has the boundary of the site (NP/WLS) been rationalised?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Boundary of the site not rationalized and there<br />
exists enclave(/s) of private properties within<br />
the site.<br />
Boundary of the site not rationalized and there<br />
exists enclave(/s) of private properties crisscrossing<br />
the periphery of the site.<br />
Boundary of the site though rationalised, there<br />
are stretches of habitat contiguous to but out<br />
side the PA.<br />
The entire boundary of the site is fully<br />
rationalised.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
This is a new question which has been added<br />
in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />
2.4(2.2) Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place.<br />
Poor<br />
Management Plan exist but not comprehensive<br />
and does not divide the PA into different<br />
Zones.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management Plan<br />
including identification of the zones on the<br />
ground.<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
This question was 2.2 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />
revised format.<br />
2.5 Has the Management Plan been approved by the competent authorities?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The Management Plan not approved by any<br />
This is a new question which has been added<br />
Poor ü<br />
authority.<br />
in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />
The Management Plan has been reviewed and<br />
Fair<br />
approved by the CWLW.<br />
The Management Plan has been approved by<br />
the State Govt. on recommendation of the Good<br />
CWLW.<br />
The management Plan has been sanctioned by<br />
the state Govt. after its due review by the Very good<br />
CWLW and the WII / outside agency.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
| 288
2.6 Is there any control mechanism in place to monitor the implementations of the prescriptions<br />
of Management Plan ?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
1. Nether any mechanism in place nor any<br />
This is a new question which has been added<br />
Poor ü<br />
prescribed by the Management Plan.<br />
in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />
2. The Plan prescribes maintenance of<br />
controlled form and approval of Deviation Fair<br />
statement, but no mechanism to monitor.<br />
3. The Plan prescribes maintenance of control<br />
form and deviation statement and control<br />
Good<br />
mechanism is also in place, but not<br />
implemented.<br />
The Plan prescribes maintenance of control<br />
form and deviation statement and control<br />
Very good<br />
mechanism is also in place and the4 same<br />
being implemented..<br />
2.7(2.3) Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review and<br />
This question was 2.3 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />
Poor<br />
update of Management Plan.<br />
revised format.<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in adhoc<br />
manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and systematically<br />
updated.<br />
Good ü<br />
Management Plan routinely, systematically and<br />
scientifically updated through a participatory<br />
process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.8(2.4) Does the site safeguard the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
This question was 2.4 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
revised format.<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened biodiversity<br />
values.<br />
Fair<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Good ü<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened biodiversity<br />
values.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
289 |
2.9(2.5) Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
This question was 2.5 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
revised format.<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.10(2.6) Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are entirely adhoc.<br />
revised format.<br />
This question was 2.6 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />
Poor ü<br />
Limited planning and monitoring programmes<br />
are in place for habitat restoration.<br />
Fair<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.11(2.7) Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely adhoc. Poor<br />
This question was 2.7 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />
Limited planning and monitoring programmes<br />
revised format.<br />
Fair<br />
are in place for reintroduction programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally well<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.12(2.8) Does the site have an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
This question was 2.8 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy.<br />
Fair<br />
revised format.<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection strategy<br />
but is not very effective.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very effective<br />
protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
| 290
2.13(2.9) Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant.<br />
Poor<br />
This question was 2.9 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
revised format.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
Good<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating all<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.14 Is the site properly identified (NP /WLS) and categorized (in terms of Zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Site identified correctly but not categorized. Fair<br />
Site identified correctly but not systematically<br />
categorized.<br />
Good<br />
Site identified correctly systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good<br />
2.15 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network /<br />
This does not appear to be appropriate at site<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
level and may be taken to state level<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site into<br />
assessment.<br />
Fair<br />
a network / landscape.<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network / landscape<br />
Good<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network /<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
291 |
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed according to the specific objectives of management?<br />
Are the personnel well organized and managed with access adequate recourses ?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Personnel Resources allotted in adhoc manner<br />
without any idea of requirement or availability<br />
thereof.<br />
No exercise carried out to fix optimum<br />
requirement of personnel resources required<br />
for the specific management objectives of the<br />
PA and personnel resources allotted as per<br />
availability.<br />
Optimum requirement of resources worked out<br />
as per specific management objectives but<br />
allotment made as per availability.<br />
Optimum requirement of resources worked out<br />
as per specific management objectives and<br />
adequate allotment made accordingly.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The portion struck off is the one as it existed in<br />
Dr. Mathur’s revised format. Since the<br />
subsequent points i.e. 3.2 & 3.3 talk about<br />
other recourses, there appears no necessity for<br />
lumping up other resources with personnel<br />
resources.<br />
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources allotted in adhoc manner without<br />
any idea of requirement or availability thereof.<br />
Poor<br />
No exercise carried out to fix optimum<br />
requirement of resources required for the<br />
specific management objectives of the PA and<br />
Fair<br />
resources allotted as per availability.<br />
No exercise carried out to fix optimum<br />
requirement of resources required for the<br />
specific management objectives of the PA and<br />
Good ü<br />
resources allotted as per availability.<br />
Optimum requirement of resources worked out<br />
as per specific management objectives and<br />
adequate allotment made accordingly.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
| 292
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked with to priority actions prescription of Management<br />
Plan and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds are<br />
never released in time.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Some specific allocation for management of<br />
priority action and some funds released in time.<br />
Fair<br />
Prescriptions of Management Plan<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation and<br />
Good<br />
generally funds released in time.<br />
Prescriptions of Management Plan<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time release<br />
of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the management<br />
of the site.<br />
Poor ü<br />
NGOs make some contribution to management<br />
of the site but opportunities for collaboration Fair<br />
are not systematically explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically sought<br />
and negotiated for the management of some Good<br />
site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically sought<br />
and negotiated for the management of many<br />
site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks.<br />
Poor<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
293 |
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained man power resources for effective management ?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and front lone staff in<br />
the site .<br />
Poor<br />
Few trained officers and front line staff who are<br />
posted in the site<br />
Fair ü<br />
A large number of trained officers and front<br />
lined staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and front line staff are<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
Poor<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives, but Fair<br />
not consistently or systematically assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is directly<br />
linked to achievement of relevant management<br />
objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic public participation in most aspects<br />
of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
| 294
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
complaints.<br />
Poor<br />
Complaints handling system operational but not<br />
responsive to individual issues and limited Fair<br />
follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good ü<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Fair<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed by<br />
PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are addressed<br />
effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good ü<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general and<br />
has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Fair<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides detailed<br />
insight into major management issues for most Good<br />
PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely provided<br />
on management and condition of public assets<br />
in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
295 |
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds with<br />
relevant PA category and/or threaten PA<br />
Poor<br />
values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally accord<br />
with relevant PA category and don't threaten Fair<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance PA Good ü<br />
values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA values.<br />
Very good<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
Poor<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken but<br />
neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting of<br />
management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is the<br />
maintenance schedule.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds are<br />
made available.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
| 296
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species populations<br />
declining.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Good<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Very good<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacing that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able to<br />
sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Poor<br />
Some biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most biological communities likely to be able to<br />
sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good<br />
All biological communities likely to be able to<br />
sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 How effective is the enforcement of WPA?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Serious violation of WPA takes place but cases<br />
This is a new question which has been added<br />
Poor<br />
not detected<br />
in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />
Serious violation takes place, some cases<br />
detected and in a few cases prosecution<br />
Fair ü<br />
launched but no conviction has taken place<br />
Serious violation takes place, cases detected<br />
and in a few cases offenders convicted<br />
Good<br />
Serious violation takes place / violation do not<br />
take place, cases detected and in most of the<br />
cases offenders convicted.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
297 |
6.4(6.3) Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but have<br />
This question was 6.3 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />
Poor<br />
enhanced.<br />
revised format.<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.5(6.4) Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
This question was 6.4 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
revised format.<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
6.6(6.5) Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are hostile. Poor<br />
This question was 6.5 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />
Key neighbours/communities are supportive. Fair<br />
revised format.<br />
Most neighbours/communities are supportive of<br />
PA management.<br />
Good<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive of<br />
PA management.<br />
Very good ü<br />
6.7(6.6) Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or despite<br />
This question was 6.6 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />
management efforts, deterioration of cultural<br />
revised format.<br />
Poor<br />
heritage assets continues, or values are<br />
unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but deterioration<br />
continues.<br />
Fair<br />
Planned approach to management underway<br />
and deterioration of assets is being redressed.<br />
Good ü<br />
Planned approach to management underway<br />
and deterioration of assets is being significantly<br />
redressed.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
| 298
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 05 10 50 37.5<br />
2. Planning 13 10 130 64.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 22.5<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 42.5<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 30.0<br />
6. Outcomes 07 10 70 45.0<br />
Total 39 390 242<br />
Overall Score<br />
62 %<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />
299 |
| 300
25. Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />
Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />
301 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
The values of the site has been very well<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
documented.<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good ü<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
All potential threats are being identified. The<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
threats cover (a) construction of 600MW power<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
house at KIMI (b) ITDC tourist lodge (c) Poaching<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
pattern (d) NTFR extraction. (e) Ecological threats<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
of the weeds has also been identified<br />
Good<br />
assessed.<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
Very good ü<br />
assessed.<br />
1.3 Is the site free from outside human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
Human settlement and encroachment has been<br />
Poor<br />
interference<br />
stopped.<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interference<br />
Fair<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference<br />
Good ü<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />
| 302
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP /WLS) and categorized (in terms of Zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
The categorisation and zonation has been done<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
but specific identification at the site has not yet<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
happed. Broadly area is known to the<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
department.<br />
Good ü<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Site identified correctly systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
The site has a draft management plan. That is<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
yet to be approved by higher authorities. Period<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive<br />
2005-2009<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
Yet to be done, but is modified as per<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
requirement<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
ad-hoc manner.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.4 Does the site safeguard the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Poor<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Fair<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />
303 |
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
As per the management there were no stake<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
holder at the time of declaring the sanctuary. At<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
present some encroachers are claiming rights of<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
settlement.<br />
Good ü<br />
processes.<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
Very good<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
The job is restricted to cleaning weeds, water<br />
Poor<br />
entirely ad-hoc.<br />
tank construction only<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />
At present there is no reintroduction programme<br />
Poor<br />
adhoc.<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair ü<br />
[ it is to be decided if this point could be<br />
evaluated]<br />
programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.8 Does the site have an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Detailed strategy has been worked out, keeping<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
in mind the ground reality.<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Good<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />
| 304
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
There is no major human wildlife conflict. Some<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
also not aware of the necessity and procedure of<br />
incident may not be reported also. Villagers are<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
reporting.<br />
Good ü<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network /<br />
Sessa Orchid Sanctuary and Eagle nest WLS<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
falls within the same landscape and broad<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
ecological unit. There are no other specific<br />
Fair<br />
into a network / landscape.<br />
activities required to homogenous and for<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
ecological integration. The declaration of the<br />
Good<br />
network / landscape<br />
nearby areas simultaneously as sanctuaries is a<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network<br />
farsighted and laudable exercise.<br />
Very good ü<br />
/ landscape.<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are the personnel well organized and managed with access adequate recourses?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
The personals are well organised.<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />
305 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
Resources are not adequate, but whatever<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management<br />
available are being utilised.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for pa<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives<br />
some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives..<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked with to priority actions and are funds released<br />
timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
The resources are linked with priority actions.<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
GoI release fund during Set-Oct, but state Govt.<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
releases it by Feb-Mar next year.<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
Some support from the NGO has been received<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />
| 306
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
The resources are inadequate. The affords are<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
being taken to generate resources.<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained man power resources for effective management ?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Only one has been trained.<br />
Poor ü<br />
in the site .<br />
Few trained officers and front line staff who<br />
are posted in the site<br />
Fair<br />
A large number of trained officers and front<br />
lined staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and front line staff<br />
are posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
There is a linkage between the performance to<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
management objectives<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
There is no possibilities of public participation.<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
The situation of the site , pattern of the fringe<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
population and the low density do not allow<br />
Fair ü<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
the regular participation of the people.<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
Good<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />
management.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />
307 |
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
The mechanism does not exist. It can be<br />
Poor ü<br />
complaints.<br />
framed as and when required.<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
Good<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response Very good<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
As per the present circumstances there is no<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
linkage, but it will gradually take shape. There<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
are small demands coming from the fringe are<br />
Fair<br />
management.<br />
people, that will be taken care off.<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are<br />
addressed by PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
What ever materials are available to the<br />
Poor<br />
publicly available.<br />
department are accessible to the people.<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
There is a need of further activities in this<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
regard<br />
Fair ü<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of Very good<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />
| 308
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor<br />
The facilities are not adequate.<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair ü<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance Good<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Very good<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
The reporting system exists and working well.<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
A wireless operator at the beat office exists<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good ü<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
There is a system exists.<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />
309 |
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
Monitoring has been done. The census has<br />
Poor<br />
populations declining.<br />
been done for Elephant, leopard, Himalayan<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
Black bear etc. The census does not held<br />
Fair<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
regularly.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Good ü<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Very good<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacing that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Poor<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Fair<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
The threat has been identified and has been<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
abated.<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good ü<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
The expectation a re generally met<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />
| 310
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
The small population in the fringe are not<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
against, and there is no reason to evaluation<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
of the support status to the park<br />
Fair<br />
supportive.<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Cultural assets are being identified and<br />
management are aware about it. Separate<br />
protection is need offered now. If required<br />
they will offer.<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 27.5<br />
2. Planning 10 10 100 77.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 32.5<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 25.0<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 25.0<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 47.5<br />
Total 39 330 235.0<br />
Overall Score<br />
71 %<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />
311 |
| 312
26. Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
313 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
The value of the site are well documented in the<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
management plan and a booklet prepared in Hindi<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
'Sohelwa Ke Van'. Values have been well<br />
Fair ü<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
assessed on the basis of which management<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
prescriptions are proposed but the monitoring<br />
Good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
system is week and needs improvement.<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
Very good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
The threats are well documented in the<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
management plan and management strategy has<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
accordingly been planned.<br />
Fair<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good ü<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
The PA has been created from the old Reserves<br />
Poor ü<br />
interference.<br />
of Sohelwa and Tulsipur and part of vested<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
forests of Balrampur Estate most of which have<br />
Fair<br />
interference.<br />
now the RF status. There are 180 villages within<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
5 km. from the PA boundary on <strong>India</strong>n side.<br />
Good<br />
interference.<br />
Nepal falls all along its Northern boundary. The<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
average width of PA is 6.7 km. only. The human<br />
interference.<br />
population in villages within 5 Km. from PA<br />
boundary in <strong>India</strong> is over 130,000 and cattle<br />
population is over 1,00,000. 63 villages fall close<br />
to the PA boundary, distance being 0-1 km. The<br />
pressure on the PA is in the form of grazing, fuel<br />
Very good<br />
wood collection, NTFP collection, timber felling<br />
and occasional poaching. Due to frequent<br />
change of PA Directors, little efforts to minimize<br />
the pressures were made. The present DFO is<br />
trying his best to stop these pressures and<br />
results have already started showing in some<br />
Ranges.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
| 314
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
The site is properly identified and has been<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
notified as WLS under Wildlife (Protection) Act<br />
Fair ü<br />
categorized.<br />
1972. No zonation has been done and the entire<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
WLS has the same management practices. Two<br />
Good<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
ranges to the east of the PA are under the<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
management of DFO, Sohelwa WLS and are<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
being treated as buffer. The tourism is allowed in<br />
Very good<br />
all important places. Though the number of<br />
visitors is limited. This is an important PA on<br />
Tarai Arc Landscape.<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
There is a comprehensive management plan.<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
Which is first for this PA for a period of 10 years<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive.<br />
from 2000-01 to 2009-10. With lot of new<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
technologies having evolved and good<br />
Good ü<br />
Plan.<br />
experience gained this needs updating.<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />
participatory process.<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
This is the first management plan of the PA which<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
is not due for revision. This needs updating<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
immediately.<br />
Fair ü<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
Good<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated Very good<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
315 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
The biodiversity value of the site is that this is a<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
connecting link of Tarai Arc Landscape and the<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
landscapes if secured has tremendous<br />
Fair<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
biodiversity value. In the North-West there are<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
following forest blocks with few gaps in between<br />
Good ü<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
and it then gets connected with Katarniaghat<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
WLS.<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Sohelwa- Kakadari-Charda-Chakia- Katarniaghat<br />
WLS. In the North are the Churia hills of Nepal<br />
with some contiguity with this PA. There is a big<br />
gap in the Eastern portion of <strong>India</strong> but through<br />
the forests in Nepal it has some connectivity with<br />
Very good<br />
the eastern most tiger habitat comprising of<br />
Chitwan N.P. in Nepal and Sohagibarwa WLS<br />
(UP) and Valmiki TR (Bihar) in <strong>India</strong>. The PA is<br />
linear in shape but has a vital linkage value for<br />
survival of tigers. During recent past wild<br />
elephants in small groups are visiting Sohelwa<br />
WLS every year.<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
Till now there has been little participation of<br />
Poor ü<br />
participation in planning.<br />
stakeholders in the planning process except<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
involvement of Budha Society, a Balrampur<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
based NGO which is actively represented by<br />
Good<br />
processes.<br />
Prof. Nagendra Singh of PG college Balrampur<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
who is also a WWF- <strong>India</strong> coordinator in<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Balrampur. Smt. Neharika Singh of Tapoban<br />
Farm near Bankatwa Range has also formed a<br />
NGO at local level and was seen taking some<br />
Very good<br />
interest in the management affairs of the P.A. Let<br />
us hope the interest is sustained on positive<br />
aspects and not just criticizing the management<br />
without positive support.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
| 316
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?\<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
restoration.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
In the Annual Plan of Operation submitted to<br />
Govt. of <strong>India</strong> for 2006-07, Rs. 21.75 lakh was<br />
proposed for habitat improvement, water and soil<br />
conservation measures and survey and<br />
demarcation of boundary but hardly 5 lakh could<br />
be sanctioned. Similarly in 2005-06. 4 lakh was<br />
sanctioned for habitat improvement and survey<br />
and demarcation but only 1.88 lakh was<br />
sanctioned for control burning of grasses and<br />
weeds and Rs. 2 lakh for soil conservation works.<br />
No budget is provided by State Govt. for these<br />
works. Habitat improvement consisted of<br />
grassland development, uprooting of lantana<br />
weeds and soil conservation measures like<br />
construction of check dams etc. With the<br />
available budget no systematic planning is<br />
possible. Monitoring is being done at the<br />
DFO/ACF level and also at higher levels.<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />
adhoc.<br />
Poor -<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair -<br />
programmes.<br />
No Programme being taken up.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Good -<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good -<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
The strategy for protection is continued patrolling<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü by frontline staff, vigilance, intelligence collection<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
and checking of illegal activities like grazing, fuel<br />
Good<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
wood and NTFP collection, checking of poaching<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
and illicit felling etc. No regular patrolling scheme<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
is drawn nor there is systematic intelligence<br />
network.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
317 |
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor ü There has been an intense human wildlife conflict<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
killed and 52 injured by wolves in the villages<br />
in the PA during last 5 years. 91 children were<br />
Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
around the P.A. Intensive efforts were put in by<br />
Good<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
the management to eliminate the problem. Cattle<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
lifting incidents by tiger/leopard are negligible due<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
to prey availability in the forest but damage to<br />
agricultural crops by wild boars Nilgai and other<br />
herbivores is substantial, large number of cases<br />
Very good<br />
of payment of compensation on account of<br />
killing/injury by wolves still remain to be<br />
decided/paid. Due to large number of villages<br />
close to the PA the conflict is likely to remain<br />
unless concerted efforts are made.<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
As is c learly explained under point no. 2.4 above,<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
this site is very important in the Tarai Arc<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
Landscape and though the management is<br />
Fair ü<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
aware of the value of the site as an important<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
linkage in the TAL but little efforts are being<br />
Good<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
made for restoration of linkages etc. The forests<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
of Bahraich/ Srawasti districts are under<br />
landscape.<br />
jurisdiction of DFO, Sohelwa and are also<br />
important as a viable tiger conservation habitat<br />
but there needs to be a action plan for<br />
coordination between the two. Similarly, there<br />
Very good<br />
needs to be more meaningful dialogue with<br />
authorities of adjoining Nepal forests. Many<br />
artificial and natural water bodies in the PA<br />
attract migratory birds during winter and their<br />
protection is part of the PA management.<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
The personnel are used exclusively for<br />
management and protection of wildlife and its<br />
habitat but they lack training and are not fully<br />
oriented into it. As they were previously in the<br />
traditional forest working their attitude is yet to be<br />
changed. They have sufficient number of fire<br />
arms and there is satisfactory communication<br />
network but the supply of uniforms, timely<br />
payment of TA etc. and provision of motorcycle<br />
and bicycles for field staff remains to be met.<br />
Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
| 318
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
The position of four wheel vehicles is satisfactory<br />
but motor cycles and bicycles for frontline staff<br />
needs urgent attention. Though the position of<br />
fire arms is good but their upkeep & training of<br />
staff to efficiently handle them is lacking. Most of<br />
the buildings are old and need repairs. Wireless<br />
network needs expansion.<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
The fund position for last 5 years is as under :<br />
Poor<br />
are never released in time.<br />
Year Total funding Provided Percentage<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
(other than under CSS of CSS<br />
salary &<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />
collection)<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
2001-02 1129.67 7.55 0.66%<br />
2002-03 70.14 8.40 11.90%<br />
2003-04 29.17 18.00 61.70%<br />
2004-05 45.77 31.80 69.50%<br />
2005-06 36.77 31.83 86.50%<br />
In 2001-02 & 2002-03 main funding came from<br />
World Bank aided Forestry Project and also from<br />
Border area Development Scheme. The budget<br />
allotted by State Govt. under fire control plan and<br />
communication was mainly used in the 2 Ranges<br />
in buffer area. Substantial funding by Govt. of <strong>India</strong><br />
under CSS Development of National Park &<br />
Sanctuaries came from 2003-04 onwards. The<br />
State Govt. bears the salary, wages and other<br />
allowances of the establishment to the tune of 65<br />
to 70 lakhs annually. During 2006-07 a total of<br />
34.57 lakh has been sanctioned under CSS out of<br />
which 24.10 has been released to State Govt. but<br />
State Govt. has so far released only 12.05 lakh to<br />
the PA. The release by State Govt. is generally<br />
delayed.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
319 |
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
So far only WWF-<strong>India</strong> has been supporting the<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
PA in terms of equipment. They have so far<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
provided the following equipment :<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
Bolero Camper field vehicle - 1<br />
Fair<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Yamaha Crux Motor Cycles - 4<br />
explored.<br />
Wireless sets with chargers: Fixed - 7 Nos.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
Handsets<br />
- 20 Nos.<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good ü Mosquito Nets<br />
- 200 Nos.<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
Jackets<br />
- 200 Nos.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
Wildlife Census kits<br />
- 70 Nos.<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Very good<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Resource is insufficient and more support is<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü needed under CSS & also for the State Govt.<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Front line staff position is good but the training is<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks.<br />
lacking and average age is high. The vacancy in<br />
ACF level needs to be filled for better<br />
supervision of works as DFO has to remain busy<br />
Very good<br />
with miscellaneous duties at district level.<br />
Frequent changes of DFOs (7 during last 7<br />
years) has not helped the management to push<br />
forward the planning and implementation.<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
Neither any officer nor any of the frontline staff is<br />
Poor ü<br />
in the site.<br />
trained in wildlife.<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
| 320
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
Staff performance is management linked as far<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
as the protection part of management goes but<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
for meeting other management objectives the<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
performance needs more oriented.<br />
Fair ü<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Very good<br />
management objectives.<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
Public participation in management is very<br />
Poor ü<br />
management.<br />
little. One Balrampur based NGO is involved<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
in few aspects of management. Some help in<br />
Fair<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
information collection is taken and all the<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
works in the PA are done by local people on<br />
Good<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
payment of wages.<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />
management.<br />
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
The complaints are routinely handled and<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
there is no responsive system in place.<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
321 |
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
There is heavy dependence of the local<br />
Poor ü<br />
management.<br />
people on forest resource of the P.A. No<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management strategy is there in place to<br />
Fair<br />
management.<br />
reduce this dependence by providing<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
alternatives except the policing. The women<br />
Good<br />
by PA management.<br />
are by and large illiterate and poor and their<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
livelihood issues need to be addressed<br />
communities especially women are<br />
Very good<br />
urgently.<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
assets.<br />
Fair<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Management Plan has adequate information<br />
but needs to be put on website of the PA,<br />
which does not exist at the moment. At least<br />
its copy can be put in public library at district<br />
HQrs. The booklet in Hindi "Sohelwa ke Van"<br />
published recently and widely distributed is a<br />
good effort. The brochure in Hindi has good<br />
tourism related information and general<br />
information.<br />
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The number of visitors is low (1500-1600<br />
annually). The presence of Forest Rest<br />
Houses in deep forests with heritage values<br />
could be a good attraction. The brochure has<br />
enough useful information for the visitors.<br />
Staff is friendly and Rest Houses have good<br />
Chaukidars. There are signage at important<br />
places which need more planning.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
| 322
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
The management trends are not being<br />
Poor ü<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
systematically evaluated. This is the first<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
evaluation of its kind done by an external<br />
Fair<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
agency based on IUCN guidelines.<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
Good<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends Very good<br />
undertaken.<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
The maintenance schedule as per<br />
Poor<br />
schedule.<br />
departmental practice for infrastructure/assets<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
exists but funds are not adequate for their<br />
Fair ü<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
maintenance specially for maintenance and<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
upkeep of staff quarters, bridges and culverts,<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
Good<br />
fire arms, wireless sets and Forest Rest<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Houses.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
6. Outcomes<br />
Very good<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The estimation figures maintained by the<br />
management show a declining trend for tiger<br />
population and that is evident from the<br />
decline shown in the important ungulate<br />
population (Cheetal, Sambar & Nilgai).<br />
Panther population shows an increase and<br />
that is evident from the signs found by me on<br />
the ground. This is another indication of<br />
decrease in tiger population. During my field<br />
visit of two days I could see pug marks of<br />
one large female in Bankatwa range close to<br />
Pipraha FRH near Hathiyakund Nala and<br />
pugmarks of a male tiger in Mendhkiya beat<br />
of same Range behind Banghogwa bund.<br />
The habitat is good and has potential for<br />
good tiger population provided the biotic<br />
pressures are reduced.<br />
Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
323 |
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
The forest quality in most parts is excellent<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
but due to overgrazing in the past<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
regeneration of important species is deficient<br />
Fair ü<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
and there is infestation of lantana and few<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
other weeds. The tigers are said to be<br />
Good<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
breeding and so is the case with other<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
carnivores and herbivores but with high<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
disturbance level the ratio is likely to be<br />
Very good<br />
affected. Bird populations look more<br />
healthier.<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
The present DFO is very particular about<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
minimizing of biotic pressures and has been<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
successful to some extent in some ranges<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü with the support of ACF and RFO. Illicit filling<br />
All threats to the site have been abated.<br />
of timber species is a constant threat which<br />
has been checked to a great extent by the<br />
present DFO. The head load lifting of<br />
Very good<br />
firewood continues and needs to be<br />
checked. There has been a decline in<br />
poaching cases also.<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
There are only 1500-1600 visitors to the PA<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
annually whose remarks in FRH registers<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü show that their expectations were generally<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
met.<br />
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
The large number of villages on one side of<br />
Poor ü<br />
hostile.<br />
PA have experienced horrifying menace of<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
wolves during past 5 years and are not<br />
Fair<br />
supportive.<br />
supportive of PA management in general.<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
Their dependence on forest resources and<br />
Good<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
absence of alternatives also makes them<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
antagonistic when they are checked or<br />
Very good<br />
of PA management.<br />
restricted to go to the forest.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
| 324
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The Forest Rest Houses are the most<br />
important cultural heritages present in the<br />
PA most being close to 100 years old. They<br />
have been well protected. Rajia Tal in<br />
Sohelwa East constructed in Moghal period<br />
by Razia Begam and the caves known as<br />
"Angulimal Caves" in Bhainsasur beat of<br />
Tulsipur Range are also well protected. The<br />
Tharus, a Schedule Tribe of Tarai inhabit<br />
many villages in Sohelwa West, Rampur and<br />
Bhabar Ranges and their traditions are well<br />
protected.<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 15.0<br />
2. Planning 10 10 90 47.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 27.5<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 17.5<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 20.0<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 35.0<br />
Total 33 320 166.5<br />
Overall Score<br />
52%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />
325 |
| 326
27. Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
327 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
Sultanpur NP is a small NP in a highly<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
industrialized and urbanized city of Gudgaon with<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
just 1.4 km<br />
Fair<br />
2 area. This is basically a waterbody<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
attracting migratory birds in large numbers in<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
winters. 1.21 km 2 area was declared as Wildlife<br />
Good ü<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Sanctuary in 1971 under Punjab Wildlife<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
Preservation Act of 1959. Later the area was<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
increased to 1.42 km 2 in 1991 and simultaneously<br />
Very good<br />
it was declared as a NP. The value of the site as<br />
a important wetland attracting large number of<br />
migratory birds are well documented.<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
As far as the site proper is concerned, the threats<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
are well documented and assessed but the<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
biggest threat to the site is industrial development<br />
Fair ü<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
in its immediate vicinity. Gudgaon is developing<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
as one of the most modern cities in the country<br />
Good<br />
assessed.<br />
and its proximity to the capital city of Delhi has<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
accelerated its growth within very short time. This<br />
assessed.<br />
NP though small in extent could be very important<br />
as the lung of Gudgaon as also a very important<br />
destination for weekend relaxation. A buffer zone<br />
of 136 km 2 around the sanctuary was declared at<br />
the time of notification which was closed to all<br />
type of hunting and trapping, encompassing 17<br />
villages. At the moment there is great pressure<br />
right at the doorstep of the NP for establishing<br />
industries but the State Govt. has not taken any<br />
Very good<br />
steps under <strong>Environment</strong>al Protection Act to<br />
declare a ecosensitive zone around this NP. This<br />
threat is going to stop the migratory birds to come<br />
to the site thereby loosing all its charm in spite of<br />
years of efforts put in here. If the state Govt’s<br />
enthusiasm to bring in large industries close to<br />
this NP is not checked then the dream of great<br />
ornithologist late Salim Ali, Mr. Peter Jackson the<br />
then IUCN member and our late P.M. Smt. Indira<br />
Gandhi to make it a great destination for<br />
migratory birds, will get shattered.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
| 328
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
The site proper has little or no human or biotic<br />
Poor<br />
interference.<br />
interference as such but the threat mentioned in<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
para 1.2 above could ruin the future of this<br />
Fair ü<br />
interference.<br />
important destination of migratory birds.<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
This is a small P.A. with 50% of the area being<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
under water. Proper zonation within the NP has<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
been done to denote areas for visitors. The map<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
with paths inside NP which visitors could take is<br />
Good ü<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
displayed at the reception. The zonation is in<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
terms of water-body and forest area. Large herds<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans. Very good<br />
of Nilgai could be seen in Forested area roaming<br />
around undisturbed.<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
A Management Plan was drafted by the previous<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
I/c of the NP for 2000-01 to 2004-05 but was not<br />
Fair ü<br />
comprehensive.<br />
finally approved by CWLW. The M.P. is a good<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
effort which needs to be edited and approved<br />
Good<br />
Plan.<br />
with some modifications.<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />
participatory process.<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
There is a draft MP which needs to be updated<br />
Poor ü<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
and approved.<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated Very good<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
329 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
The site is very small and well fenced all around.<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
The biodiversity is in terms of migratory and<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
resident bird species, some mammals, reptiles<br />
Fair ü<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
and amphibians. The tree species are mostly<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
planted and few natural shrubs, herbs and<br />
Good<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
grasses are coming up. Site being small and<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
fenced threatened biodiversity values are<br />
Very good<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
safeguarded.<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
Stakeholders are mainly visitors, one guide and<br />
Poor ü<br />
participation in planning.<br />
villagers of surrounding villages. There is no<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
opportunity given so far to stakeholders to<br />
Stakeholders participate in mos t planning<br />
participate in planning.<br />
Good<br />
processes.<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
Very good<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
restoration.<br />
Fair<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The NP has 50% of habitat as a waterbody. Most<br />
important planning for habitat restoration is to<br />
keep the waterbody alive. With the help of CSS<br />
budget the management has got a permanent<br />
water supply from Gudgaon water supply scheme<br />
due to which the water remains throughout the<br />
season.Other programmes like weed eradication,<br />
moud construction and maintenance is done<br />
regularly.<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />
adhoc.<br />
Poor -<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair -<br />
programmes.<br />
There is no such programme in the PA.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Good -<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good -<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
| 330
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
The site is fenced from all around as it is<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
surrounded by habitation and agriculture. The<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
fence is being strengthened and there is little<br />
Good ü<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
infringement by cattle or human beings.<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
The only conflict is raiding of agricultural fields<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
which is in progress this problem will be reduced.<br />
around the PA by Nilgai. With repair of fence<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
Stray dogs also get into the PA and harass birds<br />
Good<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
and fawns.This will also be mitigated with<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
strengthening of fence.<br />
Very good<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
This is an isolated site mostly used by migratory<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
birds. Migratory birds fly to nearby areas for<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
feeding. Different species depart from and arrive<br />
Fair ü<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
to the site at different times. There are few water<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
bodies in the nearby areas and river Yamuna is<br />
Good<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
also not very far. Bhinderwas WLS, which is also<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
a site for migratory birds is at a distance of 50<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
km. and Okhla WLS is also approachable.<br />
Bhinderwas WLS is well maintained.<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Area being small the management staff<br />
consisting of a Inspector I/c, 1 Sub Inspector and<br />
2 wildlife Gaurds are well organized and they<br />
have one jeep, one motor bike, a wireless field<br />
station, walkie-talki set and a revolver with the<br />
Inspector. The resources are enough for this<br />
small N.P.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
331 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
The resources are enough and well organized<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
and managed for this small NP.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
are never released in time.<br />
Poor<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released<br />
in time.<br />
Fair<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The availability of budget from State Govt. and<br />
centrally sponsored scheme has been as under<br />
for the last 5 years excluding salary of staff:<br />
Year State Budget CSS Total<br />
2001-02 8.24 1.71 9.95<br />
2002-03 0.69 5.60 6.29<br />
2003-04 0.64 12.05 12.69<br />
2004-05 25.16 12.13 37.29<br />
2005-06 18.28 22.85 41.13<br />
In addition to the above the State Govt. spends 7<br />
to 8 lakh per year on salaries and wages of the<br />
PA staff. The centrally sponsored scheme has<br />
been very helpful for the NP due to which the<br />
water supply to the water body could be restored,<br />
deepening of lake at desired places could be<br />
done,fencing is being repaired and interpretive<br />
facilities could be made. Rs. 68.27 lakhs has<br />
been sanctioned for 2006-07 under CSS<br />
including 7.335 lakhs of previous year unspent<br />
balance out of which 42.50 has been released in<br />
1 st installment and the total amount has been<br />
released to field.<br />
Some major amount of CSS remained unspent<br />
during 2003-04. Rs. 20 lakhs were sanctioned for<br />
setting up of a Biodiversity Conservation Centre<br />
out of which only 1.5 lakhs were spent during<br />
that year on purchase of bricks and sand. The<br />
scheme has now reportedly been dropped and<br />
bricks etc. utilized elsewhere.Rs.20 .25 lacs<br />
sanctioned in 2005-06 for raising of fence has<br />
also not been fully utilized as 7.335 lakh is<br />
unspent which is being utilized this year. The<br />
utilization of central funds has otherwise been<br />
usefully done. Fund release has by and large<br />
been done timely by central and State Govts.<br />
Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
| 332
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
The Salim Ali Centre for Awareness was set up<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
by BNHS and bird ringing was also done by<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
BNHS for studying the migratory birds.<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
Resources are sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
The present Inspector I/c of the NP was trained<br />
Poor<br />
in the site.<br />
in Bandhavgarh Wildlife Training Centre.<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
Previous Inspector I/c was a diploma trained<br />
Fair ü<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
from WII, Gaurds are not trained but one of the<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
gaurds Mr. Bharat Lal has good exposure to<br />
Good<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
identification and habits of migratory and<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
resident birds.<br />
Very good<br />
posted in the site.<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
The PA staff performance is purely management<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
linked for achievement of management<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
objectives.<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
333 |
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
The public participation is poor and needs to<br />
Poor ü<br />
management.<br />
be improved.<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />
management.<br />
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
There is a routine system of handling<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
complaints which is not responsive enough to<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />
get good feedback about performance of the<br />
Management.<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
There are no communities directly dependent<br />
Poor ü<br />
management.<br />
on the PA as it is very small in extent. It can<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
provide livelihood in the form of guides who<br />
Fair<br />
management.<br />
can be trained in bird identification and<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
registered as nature guides. One local guide<br />
Good<br />
by PA management.<br />
who is well versed with migratory and resident<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
bird species is working on his own in the PA<br />
communities especially women are<br />
after a formal training, since last 4-5 years but<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
he has not been registered by the PA in spite<br />
of his repeated requests. Instead of<br />
discouraging him by not registering, more and<br />
Very good<br />
more guides from neighbouring villages<br />
should be trained and registered. This will<br />
help PA Management in the long run in<br />
keeping away the large industrial interests<br />
right at the door of the PA.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
| 334
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
assets.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
There is a draft Management Plan prepared<br />
but not approved. It has adequate information.<br />
A booklet prepared by Kalpvriksh- “Small and<br />
Beautiful Sultanpur National Park” with very<br />
good information and background history<br />
etc.is available. A folder prepared long back<br />
when it was a Sanctuary needs immediate<br />
revision.<br />
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The NP has got Dr. Salim Ali Centre, Library<br />
and Education and interpretation centre as<br />
also a binocular. The reception is well<br />
managed but there are no registered guides.<br />
One F.Gd is well versed with migratory and<br />
resident birds. A local trained guide is also<br />
available but he has not yet been registered.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
335 |
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
Initially monthly bird counts in this tiny NP<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
were initiated by Kalpvriksh a Delhi based<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
NGO who sent its members to the Park<br />
Fair<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
regularly. On the basis of the observations<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
and studies of the members of Kalpvriksh<br />
Good ü<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
detailed inventories of plants, mammals,<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
birds, reptiles and amphibians and butterflies<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
were prepared and appended to a informative<br />
undertaken.<br />
booklet named “Small and Beautiful-<br />
Sultanpur National Park” which was published<br />
by Kalpvriksh. This is perhaps the only such<br />
compilation based on detailed studies for this<br />
PA. The study also indicated that the<br />
Sultanpur Jheel was drying up and is also<br />
turning more saline. In spite of efforts to<br />
supplement water by bore wells the water<br />
body had dried and migratory birds had<br />
Very good<br />
slopped visiting this place and during 1995 to<br />
2000 there was no water in the Jheel. Now a<br />
5 cu.sec. water channed has been taken from<br />
Gudgaon water supply scheme which not only<br />
keeps the water body alive but has also<br />
addressed the salinity problem. Almost a daily<br />
count of important migratory bird species and<br />
total birds is done and displayed on a board at<br />
the reception. Monthly count needs to be<br />
published and handed out to visitors. The<br />
census of Nilgai is also being done. Water<br />
level of the Jheel is also monitored.<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
The PA being small, the infrastructure and<br />
assets are all at one place and their<br />
maintenance is easy to monitor. Reception,<br />
Salim Ali Centre and interpretation c entre are<br />
well maintained as also the staff buildings and<br />
parking, lawn etc. The fencing needs regular<br />
maintenance for which State Govt. should<br />
keep yearly provision.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
| 336
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable. Good ü<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Very good<br />
The population of migratory birds visiting the<br />
NP depends more on the external factors.<br />
However, there has been a encouraging<br />
trend as far as the total number is concerned<br />
but among individual species, the number<br />
keeps on varying. Number of flamingos<br />
visiting the NP has gone down. Due to heavy<br />
urbanization and industrialization in<br />
Gudgaon which is extending towards the<br />
Park at a alarming speed many birds like<br />
Osprey, Sirkeer cuckoo, black necked stork<br />
are becoming rarer. The number of Nilgai is<br />
increasing fast and may become a cause of<br />
concern for the management in near future.<br />
Special efforts to maintain the fish population<br />
of indigenous species suitable for a larger<br />
range of birds are urgently called for.<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
After arrangement of regular water flow in<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
the lake and control of salinity the water<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
fauna and flora is improving. The depth of<br />
Fair<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
the lake is being maintained in such a way<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
that it can support more species of migratory<br />
Good ü<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
birds. As far as the terristrial species of flora<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
and fauna are concerned, there is more of<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Prospis juliflora which needs to be kept<br />
Very good<br />
under check specially from shallow parts of<br />
the lake.<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
The main threat from stray cattle and dogs<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
will be minimized once the fence repair and<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü raising is completed which is in progress.<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
The threat to salinity of water and volume of<br />
All threats to the site have been abated.<br />
water has been abated by getting the water<br />
connection form Gudgaon water supply<br />
Very good<br />
scheme. A Siltation tank which is nearing<br />
completion will also reduce the rate of<br />
siltation of the lake.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
337 |
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
The number of visitors in 1989-90 had gone<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü up to 36000 which came down as the lake<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
dried. After 2000 the revival of lake has<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
again brought up the number to 26,389 in<br />
2005-06. This year during November and till<br />
first week of December the number had<br />
reached 17307. With Gudgaon developing<br />
into a most modern populated city the<br />
number is likely to go up very high. Special<br />
efforts will have to be made to regulate large<br />
tourist numbers and a fee hike may be one<br />
of the solutions.Restriction of daily numbers<br />
Very good<br />
with wide publicity and closing the Park once<br />
a week could also be introduced. Area of<br />
park being small, picnicking needs to be<br />
strictly prohibited and expansion of lawns will<br />
be very harmful in long run. The entry inside<br />
fence along viewing paths could also be<br />
regulated and guided through local trained<br />
and registered guides. At present there is<br />
large crowd on weekends which needs to be<br />
strictly regulated.<br />
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
There is little or no dialogue or involvement<br />
Poor ü<br />
hostile.<br />
of local communities. Area being small is<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
managed mostly by regulations. Public<br />
Fair<br />
supportive.<br />
support needs to be cultivated, particularly of<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
neighbouring villages to keep the outside<br />
Good<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
pressure on check.<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
Very good<br />
of PA management.<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The only heritage cultural or otherwise is the<br />
Sultanpur Jheel which has been revived and<br />
is being protected and sustained as a<br />
important destination for migratory birds.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
| 338
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 17.5<br />
2. Planning 9 10 90 47.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 35.0<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 22.5<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 25.0<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 35.0<br />
Total 33 320 182.5<br />
Overall Score<br />
57%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />
339 |
| 340
28. Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
341 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
The values have been identified in the<br />
Poor<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
management plan, but not systematically<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
monitored.<br />
Fair ü<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
The threats are identified in the management plan<br />
Poor<br />
assessed.<br />
but not systematically asses sed.<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
The site has considerable human of biotic<br />
Poor<br />
interference.<br />
interference especially from included population.<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Fair ü<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
| 342
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Core of buffer zones have been identified, but<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
detailed sub zones within buffer not yet properly<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
worked out.<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
The site has a comprehensive (6 volumes)<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
management plan prepared on scientific<br />
Fair<br />
comprehensive.<br />
guidelines, but not yet formally approved.<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
Current plan expires at the end of 2006-07.<br />
Poor<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
Exercise for revision of the management plan has<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
already started.<br />
Fair<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good ü<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
343 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
While the forests of flora are adequately<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
protected, but it cannot be said that all found<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
resources are fully protected.<br />
Fair<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good ü<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
The stake holders participation is there on issues<br />
Poor<br />
participation in planning.<br />
like census. Eco-development program of<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü awareness development<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
Major items of habitat restoration programmes<br />
Poor<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
are detailed in the management plan of works are<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
under taken accordingly subject to fund<br />
availability.<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good ü<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
Planning for re-introduction of Barasingha was<br />
Poor ü<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
early done, but no effort taken to carry out the<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
same<br />
programmes are in place for<br />
Fair<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
| 344
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
The site has a comprehensive protection strategy<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
but outcome is eclipsed by limited staff.<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Human wildlife conflict in terms of crop damage<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
monkeys.<br />
by wildlife is there from wild boar, bears and<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
The site is a part of national biogeographic<br />
Poor<br />
landscape.<br />
network currently, a proposal to create a tiger<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
reserve by expanding the sanctuary in the south<br />
Fair<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
to include part of Khariar Forest Division is<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
pending with Govt. of <strong>India</strong>.<br />
Good ü<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
Very good<br />
landscape.<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Fair<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
The number of staff though very limited are<br />
explicitly working towards management<br />
objectives.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
345 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
Existing resources are well organized but these<br />
Poor<br />
for PA management.<br />
are inadequate compared to the requirements.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
are never released in time.<br />
Poor<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released<br />
in time.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
Limited resources available are allocated to<br />
priority actions of some funds are released in<br />
time.<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
NGO’s contribution is limited to voluntary<br />
Poor<br />
management of the site.<br />
participation in census and public awareness<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
programmes.<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
| 346
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor ü For an area of 600 sq km 51 staff and noly about<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
30-40 lakhs of regular development expenditure<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
is too inadequate<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
The site has no trained manpower in wildlife<br />
Poor ü<br />
in the site.<br />
management.<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
Most of limited staff are deployed for achieving<br />
Poor<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
the management objectives.<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
Systematic approach is there for involving<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
local people in eco-development works public<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
awareness programmes and voluntary<br />
Fair<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
support for fire protection and information<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
gathering.<br />
Good ü<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />
management.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
347 |
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
Complaints are entertained but not logged to<br />
Poor<br />
complaints.<br />
ensure timely of effective redressed.<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
Few Livelihood issues are addressed to some<br />
Poor<br />
management.<br />
extent through limited eco-development<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
works. Complaints from local villagers for loss<br />
Fair ü<br />
management.<br />
of livelihood for establishment of sanctuary<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
are there.<br />
Good<br />
by PA management.<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
Very good<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
Only a general leaflet with basic information of<br />
Poor<br />
publicly available.<br />
the sanctuary is publicly available.<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Fair ü<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
| 348
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Limited visitors services and facilities<br />
available. Interpretation centers are primitive<br />
in nature of materials and display, through<br />
some of the buildings are good.<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
Reporting systems on major issues are there,<br />
Poor<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
but these are not done in systematic manner<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
evaluation of programmers are abhor.<br />
Fair ü<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
Good<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends Very good<br />
undertaken.<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Recently systematic inventory of works are<br />
being carried out, but funds are inadequate<br />
for proper maintenance and upkeep.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
349 |
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Even though census figures shows increase<br />
of wildlife for most of the ssp, absences of<br />
sighting of spp by team members and<br />
reports of local people, do not reveal that the<br />
position is that happy.<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
Situation is reasonably good for flora, but it<br />
Poor<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
cannot be conclusively stated that faunal<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
position is also equally good.<br />
Fair<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain nati ve biodiversity.<br />
Good ü<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
Threats to the site are minimized in general<br />
Poor<br />
have enhanced.<br />
through enforcement and public<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />
participation.<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Expectations of visitors are met with respect<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü to landscape and floral conservation, but it<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
hardly meets the expectations with respect<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
to wild animals.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
| 350
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
People who have been involved in ecodevelopment<br />
and public awareness<br />
Poor<br />
hostile.<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
programmes are generally supportive to<br />
Fair ü<br />
supportive.<br />
protected areas management.<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Through no planned effort is there for<br />
preservation of cultural heritage, the general<br />
protection offered to the area has salutary<br />
effects in redressing the deterioration of<br />
assets.<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 15<br />
2. Planning 9 10 100 65<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 25<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 27.5<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 22.5<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 37.5<br />
Total 32 330 192.5<br />
Overall Score<br />
58%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />
351 |
| 352
29. Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />
Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />
353 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
Poor<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
Fair ü<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Values identified but not systematically assessed<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
assessed.<br />
Poor<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
Fair ü<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Threats generally identified but not systematically<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed mapped.<br />
Good<br />
assessed.<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Poor<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
Fair ü<br />
interference.<br />
There are some biotic pressures from people<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
staying inside the sanctuary.<br />
Good<br />
interference.<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />
| 354
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
Fair<br />
categorized.<br />
The Sanctuary does not have any zonation, but 5<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
Good ü km of buffer zone is there around the sanctuary.<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
Fair ü<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Management plan covers the period 2000-01 to<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Good<br />
2009-10 and approved. It is however not<br />
Plan.<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />
participatory process.<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
Poor<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
Fair<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
The present Management Plan is operational and<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
Good ü would be revised after expiry.<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated Very good<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Poor<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
Fair ü<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Most of the animal spp. are on decline, but the<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
plan spp. are largely safeguarded.<br />
Good<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />
355 |
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
participation in planning.<br />
Poor<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü<br />
Stakeholders participation is limited to some<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
Good<br />
areas and only on some aspects.<br />
processes.<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair ü<br />
Limited planning at monitoring for habitat<br />
restoration.<br />
restoration programme.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
Good<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />
adhoc.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair<br />
programmes.<br />
No re-introduction programme is in place.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü<br />
Protection strategy is general in nature and<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
Good<br />
limited due less staff, non-availability of arms and<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
communications.<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
Very good<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />
| 356
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
Fair ü<br />
In spite of less human-wildlife conflict, it is<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
Good<br />
landing into some killings of wildlife every year.<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Poor<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
Fair<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
The area long with sitanandi is proposed to be<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
covered by a new tiger reserve.<br />
Good<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good ü<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Limited staff work with limited resources, duties<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
not linked to management objectives.<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Very good<br />
management objectives.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />
357 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Resources allocated to PA management but not<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
prioritized as per management objectives.<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Very good<br />
management objectives.<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
are never released in time.<br />
Poor<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
Resource allocation is fluctuating and not always<br />
released in time.<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
management of the site.<br />
Poor<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
explored.<br />
Fair ü<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
Global Tiger patrol has provided two Gypsy, one<br />
is used by DFO and the other by the ACF. WTI<br />
is providing research support for wild buffalo.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />
| 358
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />
State Government have provided resources for<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />
conservation of wildlife and also fund of 12<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
th<br />
Finance Commission.<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
in the site.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
Only one Forest Guard is wildlife trained.<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
Poor<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
assessed.<br />
Fair<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
ü<br />
Atleast Staff’s performance is linked to<br />
management objective of PA.<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
Fair ü<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Public participation is limited in some areas<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
Good<br />
and with respect to some aspects only.<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />
management.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />
359 |
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
complaints.<br />
Poor<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Complaints are entertained but follow-up is<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
limited and not systematic.<br />
Good<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response Very good<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
Fair ü Community based tourism takes care of some<br />
management.<br />
aspects of livelihood, so also the leaf and<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
Good<br />
cup/plate stitching and sale of local people<br />
by PA management.<br />
(FPCLs).<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
Very good<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
assets.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
Publicly available document is generalized in<br />
nature and not liked to management<br />
accountability or public assets.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />
| 360
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
Fair ü<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
Visitors facilities are limited and Interpretation<br />
Centres not properly organized.<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
Poor<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
Fair ü<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Annual report contains 19 stems, which are<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
reported upon each year, but systematic<br />
Good<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
evaluation of stems are not done.<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends Very good<br />
undertaken.<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Maintenance schedule is prescribed under<br />
Management Plan of the Sanctuary.<br />
Fluctuating fund flow however creates<br />
impediments for works.<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />
361 |
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining. Poor ü<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
Most of the species are declining and some<br />
have researched critical stage.<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Poor<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
Fair ü Plant communities are generally stable and<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
may sustain themselves, but status of wild<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
Good<br />
animals are not at all happy.<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
have enhanced.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü Only some threats to site have been abated.<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü Expectations met in terms of landscapes and<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
vegetation but not in terms of wild animals.<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />
| 362
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
hostile.<br />
Poor<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
Fair ü<br />
supportive.<br />
Key neighbours and communities are<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive to conservation.<br />
Good<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Poor<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
Values of cultural heritage sites know but no<br />
managemental intervention for their<br />
protection, but general protection helps in its<br />
conservation.<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 15<br />
2. Planning 10 10 100 57.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 25.0<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 25.0<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 22.5<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 27.5<br />
Total 33 330 172.50<br />
Overall Score<br />
52%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />
363 |
| 364
30. Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />
Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />
365 |
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented,<br />
assessed or monitored.<br />
Poor<br />
Values generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed and monitored.<br />
Fair<br />
Most values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
All values systematically identified and<br />
assessed and monitored.<br />
Very good ü<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or<br />
assessed.<br />
Poor<br />
Threats generally identified but not<br />
systematically assessed.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Good<br />
All threats systematically identified and<br />
assessed.<br />
Very good ü<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Poor ü<br />
The site has some human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Fair<br />
The site has little human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Good<br />
The site has no human and biotic<br />
interference.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />
| 366
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
categorized.<br />
Fair<br />
Site identified correctly but not<br />
systematically categorized.<br />
Good<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically<br />
categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good ü<br />
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />
Management Plan exist but not<br />
comprehensive.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management<br />
Plan.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />
Management Plan prepared through a<br />
participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review<br />
and update of Management Plan.<br />
Poor<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />
adhoc manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and<br />
systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management Plan routinely,<br />
systematically and scientifically updated<br />
through a participatory process.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />
367 |
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Poor<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Fair<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of<br />
threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Good ü<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened<br />
biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />
participation in planning.<br />
Poor<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />
processes.<br />
Good ü<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />
participate in all planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for habitat<br />
Fair<br />
restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
generally well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are<br />
thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />
adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring<br />
programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair<br />
programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />
well planned and monitored.<br />
Good<br />
Reintroduc tion programmes are thoroughly<br />
planned and monitored.<br />
Very good ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />
| 368
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection<br />
strategy but is not very effective.<br />
Good ü<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very<br />
effective protection strategy.<br />
Very good<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many<br />
human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Good<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />
all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Poor<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />
into a network/ landscape.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />
network/ landscape.<br />
Good<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />
landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />
369 |
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />
for PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />
management but not systematically linked Fair<br />
to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
Good ü<br />
management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />
towards achievement of specific<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />
are never released in time.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Some specific allocation for management<br />
of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />
in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />
and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />
applied to decide complete allocation of<br />
resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />
management of the site.<br />
Poor<br />
NGOs make some contribution to<br />
management of the site but opportunities<br />
for collaboration are not systematically<br />
Fair ü<br />
explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
Good<br />
management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically<br />
sought and negotiated for the<br />
management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />
| 370
3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor ü<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />
4. Process<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />
in the site.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />
who are posted in the site.<br />
Fair<br />
A large number of trained officers and<br />
frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />
Good<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff<br />
posted in the site.<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Some linkage between staff performance<br />
management and management objectives,<br />
but not consistently or systematically<br />
Fair<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />
management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is<br />
directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />
management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Fair<br />
Systematic public participation in most<br />
aspects of PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public<br />
participation in all important aspects of PA<br />
management.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />
371 |
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling<br />
complaints.<br />
Poor<br />
Complaints handling system operational<br />
but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />
limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds<br />
effectively to most complaints.<br />
Good ü<br />
All complaints systematically logged in<br />
coordinated system and timely response<br />
provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Poor<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />
management.<br />
Fair<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />
by PA management.<br />
Good ü<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />
communities especially women are<br />
addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management<br />
publicly available.<br />
Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general<br />
and has limited relevance to management<br />
accountability and the condition of public<br />
Fair ü<br />
assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides<br />
detailed insight into major management Good<br />
issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />
provided on management and condition of<br />
public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />
| 372
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />
with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor ü<br />
PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally<br />
accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair<br />
threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and most enhance Good<br />
PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />
relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />
values.<br />
Very good<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />
reporting of management related trends.<br />
Poor<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />
but neither systematic nor routine.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />
of management related trends undertaken.<br />
Good<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />
reporting of management related trends<br />
undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />
schedule.<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />
the maintenance schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule but funds are<br />
inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />
maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />
are made available.<br />
Poor<br />
Fair<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />
373 |
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations declining.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations increasing, most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species<br />
populations either increasing or stable.<br />
Good<br />
Very good<br />
ü<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Poor<br />
Some biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Most biological communities likely to be<br />
able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Good<br />
All biological communities likely to be able<br />
to sustain native biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but<br />
have enhanced.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />
All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor ü<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />
| 374
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />
hostile.<br />
Poor ü<br />
Key neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive.<br />
Fair<br />
Most neighbours/communities are<br />
supportive of PA management.<br />
Good<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive<br />
of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or<br />
despite management efforts, deterioration<br />
of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
Poor<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but<br />
deterioration continues.<br />
Fair ü<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is Good<br />
being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management<br />
underway and deterioration of assets is<br />
being significantly redressed.<br />
Very good<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
1. Context 03 10 30 22.5<br />
2. Planning 10 10 100 72.5<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50 25.0<br />
4. Process 05 10 50 27.5<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40 20.0<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60 27.5<br />
Total 33 330 195<br />
Overall Score<br />
59%<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />
375 |
| 376<br />
SITE
Annexure-I<br />
SITE<br />
Assessment Criteria for Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) of<br />
PA Network in <strong>India</strong><br />
1. Context<br />
1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Values not systematically documented, assessed or monitored. Poor<br />
Values generally identified but not systematically assessed and Fair<br />
monitored.<br />
Most values systematically identified and assessed and<br />
Good<br />
monitored.<br />
All values systematically identified and assessed and<br />
monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats not systematically documented or assessed.<br />
Poor<br />
Threats generally identified but not systematically assessed. Fair<br />
Most threats systematically identified and assessed.<br />
Good<br />
All threats systematically identified and assessed.<br />
Very good<br />
1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
The site has extensive human and biotic interference.<br />
Poor<br />
The site has some human and biotic interference.<br />
Fair<br />
The site has little human and biotic interference.<br />
Good<br />
The site has no human and biotic interference.<br />
Very good<br />
2. Planning<br />
2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />
objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not identified correctly or categorized.<br />
Poor<br />
Site identified correctly but not categorized.<br />
Fair<br />
Site identified correctly but not systematically categorized.<br />
Good<br />
Site identified correctly and systematically categorized with<br />
proper zonation plans.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Annexure-I<br />
377 |
2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />
SITE<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No relevant Management Plan in place.<br />
Poor<br />
Management Plan exist but not comprehensive.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive Management Plan.<br />
Good<br />
Site has a comprehensive, science based Management Plan<br />
prepared through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No process in place for systematic review and update of<br />
Poor<br />
Management Plan.<br />
Management Plan sometimes updated in adhoc manner.<br />
Fair<br />
Management Plan routinely and systematically updated.<br />
Good<br />
Management Plan routinely, systematically and scientifically<br />
updated through a participatory process.<br />
Very good<br />
2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Sites does not safeguard th e threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Poor<br />
Sites safeguards a few threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Fair<br />
Sites safeguards a large number of threatened biodiversity<br />
Good<br />
values.<br />
Sites safeguards all threatened biodiversity values.<br />
Very good<br />
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder participation in planning. Poor<br />
Stakeholders participate in some planning.<br />
Fair<br />
Stakeholders participate in most planning processes.<br />
Good<br />
Stakeholders routinely and systematically participate in all<br />
planning processes.<br />
Very good<br />
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring programmes are in place for Fair<br />
habitat restoration.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are generally well planned and Good<br />
monitored.<br />
Habitat restoration programmes are thoroughly planned and<br />
monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Annexure-I<br />
| 378
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />
SITE<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Reintroduction programmes are entirely adhoc.<br />
Poor<br />
Limited planning and monitoring programmes are in place for Fair<br />
reintroduction programmes.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are generally well planned and<br />
Good<br />
monitored.<br />
Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly planned and<br />
monitored.<br />
Very good<br />
2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site has no protection strategy.<br />
Poor<br />
Site has an adhoc protection strategy.<br />
Fair<br />
Site has a comprehensive protection strategy but is not very Good<br />
effective.<br />
Site has a comprehensive and very effective protection strategy. Very good<br />
2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant.<br />
Poor<br />
Site has been able to mitigate few human-wildlife conflicts. Fair<br />
Site has been able to mitigate many human-wildlife conflicts. Good<br />
Site has been able effective in mitigating all human-wildlife<br />
conflicts.<br />
Very good<br />
2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />
approach?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Site not integrated into a wider network/ landscape.<br />
Poor<br />
Some limited attempts to integrate the site into a network/ Fair<br />
landscape.<br />
Site is generally quite well integrated into a network/ landscape. Good<br />
Site is fully integrated into a wider network/ landscape.<br />
Very good<br />
3. Inputs<br />
3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated for PA management. Poor<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA management but not Fair<br />
systematically linked to management objectives.<br />
Some personnel explicitly allocated towards achievement of<br />
Good<br />
specific management objectives.<br />
Adequate personnel explicitly allocated towards achievement of<br />
specific management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Annexure-I<br />
379 |
SITE<br />
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />
adequate resources?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated for PA management. Poor<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated for PA management but not Fair<br />
systematically linked to management objectives.<br />
Some resources explicitly allocated towards achievement of<br />
Good<br />
specific management objectives.<br />
Adequate resources explicitly allocated towards achievement of<br />
specific management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resource allocation is adhoc and funds are never released in Poor<br />
time.<br />
Some specific allocation for management of priority action and Fair<br />
some funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically applied to decide most Good<br />
resource allocation and generally funds released in time.<br />
Comprehensive formulae systematically applied to decide<br />
complete allocation of resources for management and on-time<br />
release of funds.<br />
Very good<br />
3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
NGOs contribute nothing for the management of the site.<br />
Poor<br />
NGOs make some contribution to management of the site but Fair<br />
opportunities for collaboration are not systematically explored.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically sought and negotiated Good<br />
for the management of some site level activities.<br />
NGOs contributions are systematically sought and negotiated<br />
for the management of many site level activities.<br />
Very good<br />
*3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Resources insufficient for most tasks.<br />
Poor<br />
Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />
Fair<br />
Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />
Good<br />
Resources are in excess for most tasks.<br />
Very good<br />
Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Annexure-I<br />
| 380
4. Process<br />
SITE<br />
4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Very few trained officers and frontline staff in the site.<br />
Poor<br />
Few trained officers and frontline staff, who are posted in the<br />
Fair<br />
site.<br />
A large number of trained officers and frontline staff are posted Good<br />
in the site.<br />
All trained managers and frontline staff posted in the site .<br />
Very good<br />
4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No linkage between staff performance management and<br />
Poor<br />
management objectives.<br />
Some linkage between staff performance management and<br />
Fair<br />
management objectives, but not consistently or systematically<br />
assessed.<br />
Performance management for most staff is directly linked to<br />
Good<br />
achievement of relevant management objectives.<br />
Performance management of all staff is directly linked to<br />
achievement of relevant management objectives.<br />
Very good<br />
4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no public participation in PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Opportunistic public participation in some aspects of PA<br />
Fair<br />
management.<br />
Systematic public participation in most aspects of PA<br />
Good<br />
management.<br />
Comprehensive and systematic public participation in all<br />
important aspects of PA management.<br />
Very good<br />
4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic approach to handling complaints.<br />
Poor<br />
Complaints handling system operational but not responsive to Fair<br />
individual issues and limited follow up provided.<br />
Coordinated system logs and responds effectively to most<br />
Good<br />
complaints.<br />
All complaints systematically logged in coordinated system and<br />
timely response provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Annexure-I<br />
381 |
SITE<br />
4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />
especially women?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No livelihood issues are addressed by PA management.<br />
Poor<br />
Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA management.<br />
Fair<br />
Substantial livelihood issues are addressed by PA management. Good<br />
Livelihood issues of resource dependent communities especially<br />
women are addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />
Very good<br />
5. Output<br />
5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no information on PA management publicly available. Poor<br />
Publicly available information is general and has limited<br />
Fair<br />
relevance to management accountability and the condition of<br />
public assets.<br />
Publicly available information provides detailed insight into<br />
Good<br />
major management issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Comprehensive reports are routinely provided on management<br />
and condition of public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />
Very good<br />
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />
area category?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Visitor services and facilities are at odds with relevant PA<br />
Poor<br />
category and/or threaten PA values.<br />
Visitor services and facilities generally accord with relevant PA Fair<br />
category and don't threaten PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with relevant PA<br />
Good<br />
category and most enhance PA values.<br />
All visitor services and facilities accord with relevant PA<br />
category and enhance PA values.<br />
Very good<br />
5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no systematic evaluation or routine reporting of<br />
Poor<br />
management related trends.<br />
Some evaluation and reporting undertaken but neither<br />
Fair<br />
systematic nor routine.<br />
Systematic evaluation and routine reporting of management<br />
Good<br />
related trends undertaken.<br />
Systematic evaluation and comprehensive reporting of<br />
management related trends undertaken.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Annexure-I<br />
| 382
SITE<br />
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
No systematic inventory or maintenance schedule.<br />
Poor<br />
Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is the maintenance<br />
Fair<br />
schedule.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for maintenance<br />
Good<br />
schedule but funds are inadequately made available.<br />
Systematic inventory provides the basis for maintenance<br />
schedule and adequate funds are made available.<br />
Very good<br />
6. Outcomes<br />
6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threatened/ endangered species populations declining.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threatened/ endangered species populations increasing, Fair<br />
most others stable.<br />
Most threatened/ endangered species populations increasing, Good<br />
most others stable.<br />
All threatened/ endangered species populations either increasing<br />
or stable.<br />
Very good<br />
6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Biological communities unlikely to be able to sustain native<br />
Poor<br />
biodiversity.<br />
Some biological communities likely to be able to sustain native Fair<br />
biodiversity.<br />
Most biological communities likely to be able to sustain native Good<br />
biodiversity.<br />
All biological communities likely to be able to sustain native<br />
biodiversity.<br />
Very good<br />
6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Threats to the site have not abated but have enhanced.<br />
Poor<br />
Some threats to the site have been abated.<br />
Fair<br />
Most threats to the site have been abated.<br />
Good<br />
All threats to the site have been abated.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Annexure-I<br />
383 |
6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />
SITE<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Expectations of visitors generally not met.<br />
Poor<br />
Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />
Fair<br />
Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Good<br />
Good expectations of most visitors are met.<br />
Very good<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Neighbours/adjacent communities are hostile.<br />
Poor<br />
Key neighbours/communities are supportive.<br />
Fair<br />
Most neighbours/communities are supportive of PA<br />
Good<br />
management.<br />
All neighbours and communities supportive of PA management. Very good<br />
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />
Assessment criteria<br />
Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />
Little or no management undertaken, or despite management<br />
Poor<br />
efforts, deterioration of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />
values are unknown.<br />
Some management activity, but deterioration continues.<br />
Fair<br />
Planned approach to management underway and deterioration Good<br />
of assets is being redressed.<br />
Planned approach to management underway and deterioration<br />
of assets is being significantly redressed.<br />
Very good<br />
MEE Score Card<br />
Framework<br />
Element<br />
Number<br />
Framework<br />
Element Name<br />
Number of<br />
Questions<br />
(a)<br />
Maximum<br />
Mark per<br />
question (b)<br />
Total<br />
(a x b)<br />
1. Context 03 10 30<br />
2. Planning 10 10 100<br />
3. Inputs 05 10 50<br />
4. Process 05 10 50<br />
5. Outputs 04 10 40<br />
6. Outcomes 06 10 60<br />
Total 33 330<br />
Marks<br />
obtained for<br />
the Element<br />
Overall Score<br />
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />
Annexure-I<br />
| 384