28.01.2014 Views

Full page fax print - India Environment Portal

Full page fax print - India Environment Portal

Full page fax print - India Environment Portal

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

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