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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Management Effectiveness Evaluation<br />

(MEE) of PA Network in <strong>India</strong><br />

SITE REPORT


Contents<br />

Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) of PA Network in <strong>India</strong>:<br />

An Overview ..............................................................................................................................<br />

Results at a Glance ............................................................................................................. i-xii<br />

Evaluation Reports ....................................................................................................................<br />

1. Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat) .................................................................................... 1-12<br />

2. Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa) ........................................................................ 13-24<br />

3. Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka) .......................................................................... 25-36<br />

4. Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand) ................................................................................. 37-48<br />

5. Great Himalayan National Park (HP) .............................................................................. 49-61<br />

6. Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu) ..................................................................... 63-74<br />

7. Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal) ................................................................... 75-85<br />

8. Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur) ........................................................................... 87-97<br />

9. Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan) ..............................................................................99-110<br />

10. Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim) ................................................................ 111-122<br />

11. Kishtwar National Park (J&K) .................................................................................... 123-135<br />

12. Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP) ........................................................................ 137-147<br />

13. Madhav National Park (MP) ...................................................................................... 149-160<br />

14. Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal) .......................................................... 161-172<br />

15. Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N) ..................................................................... 173-183<br />

16. Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand) ............................................................... 185-199<br />

17. Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu) ...................................................................... 201-211<br />

18. National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP) ................................................................ 213-224<br />

19. Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra) ..................................................................... 225-236<br />

20. Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya) ................................................................... 237-248<br />

21. Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary ( Andhra Pradesh) ...................................................... 249-259<br />

22. Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam) ..................................................................................... 261-272<br />

23. Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra) .............................................................. 273-283<br />

24. Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura) ...................................................................... 285-299<br />

25. Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)............................................... 301-311<br />

26. Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh) .............................................................. 313-325<br />

27. Sultanpur National Park (Haryana) ........................................................................... 327-339<br />

28. Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa) ...................................................................... 341-351<br />

29. Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh) ................................................................... 353-363<br />

30. Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala) ........................................................................ 365-375<br />

Annexure-I: Assessment Criteria for Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) of<br />

PA Network in <strong>India</strong> - Site Level .................................................. 376-384<br />

i |


Results at a Glance<br />

S. No.<br />

1.<br />

2.<br />

3.<br />

4.<br />

5.<br />

6.<br />

7.<br />

8.<br />

9.<br />

10.<br />

11.<br />

12.<br />

13.<br />

14.<br />

15.<br />

16.<br />

17.<br />

18.<br />

19.<br />

20.<br />

21.<br />

22.<br />

23.<br />

24.<br />

25.<br />

26.<br />

27.<br />

28.<br />

29.<br />

Name of National Park<br />

Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />

Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />

Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />

Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />

Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />

Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />

Madhav National Park (MP)<br />

Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />

Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />

Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary ( Andhra Pradesh)<br />

Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />

Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />

Score (%)<br />

61<br />

70<br />

62<br />

53<br />

78<br />

60<br />

77<br />

74<br />

76<br />

72<br />

48<br />

60<br />

56<br />

64<br />

69<br />

43<br />

71<br />

54<br />

57<br />

72<br />

46<br />

76<br />

69<br />

62<br />

71<br />

52<br />

57<br />

58<br />

52<br />

30.<br />

Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />

59<br />

Results at a Glance<br />

i |


90<br />

80<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

Results at a Glance<br />

Very Good Good Satisfactory<br />

78 77 76 76 74 72 72 71 71 70 69 69<br />

64 62 62 61 60 60 59 58 57 57 56 54 53 52 52<br />

48<br />

46<br />

43<br />

Keoladeo NP<br />

Keibul Lamjao NP (Manipur)<br />

Nongkhyllem NP (Meghalaya)<br />

Khangchendzonga NP<br />

Mudumalai NP (Tamil Nadu)<br />

Sessa Orchid WLS<br />

Bhitarkarnika WLS<br />

Mahatma Gandhi NP (A& N)<br />

Sanjay Gandhi NP<br />

Mahananda WLS<br />

Sepahijala WLS<br />

Dandeli WLS (Karnataka)<br />

Barda WLS<br />

Kuno-Palpur WLS<br />

Gulf of Mannar NP (Tamil Nadu)<br />

Wayanad WLS (Kerala)<br />

Sunebeda WLS<br />

Sultanpur NP (Haryana)<br />

Navegaon NP<br />

Madhav NP<br />

National Chambal WLS<br />

Govind NP & WLS<br />

Udanti WLS<br />

Soheldev (Sohelwa) WLS<br />

Kistwar National Park<br />

Papikonda WLS ( Andhra Pradesh)<br />

Mahauadar WLS (Jharkhand)<br />

PA Name<br />

Jaldapara WLS<br />

GHNP, Sainj & Tirthan WLS<br />

Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

Overall MEE Score<br />

| ii


Results at a Glance<br />

iii |


| iv<br />

Results at a Glance


Results at a Glance<br />

v |


| vi<br />

Results at a Glance


Results at a Glance<br />

vii |


| viii<br />

Results at a Glance


Results at a Glance<br />

ix |


| x<br />

Results at a Glance


Results at a Glance<br />

xi |


| xii<br />

Results at a Glance


1. Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />

Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />

1 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

Importance of the area high lighted in the<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

management plan ,how ever, value as alternate<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

home for Lion ,not assessed properly and<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

effective monitoring mechanism not in place.<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

Threats recognized in the M.P. but some not<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

quantified i.e. mining in the vicinity ,pollution due<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

to industries, adverse impact of Maldharies on the<br />

Fair ü<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

ecosystem , goat/ sheep grazing etc.<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

There are 62 nesses within the sanctuary having<br />

Poor ü<br />

interference.<br />

human population of over 700 families, twenty<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

five villages in the periphery and within zone of<br />

Fair<br />

interference.<br />

influence there are major industries [chapter 11<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

Ecological and Socio - Economic study of Barda].<br />

Good<br />

interference.<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

Very good<br />

interference.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />

| 2


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Site identified properly and zonatieti shown in<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

plan but zonation within not effective.<br />

Fair ü<br />

categorized.<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

Plan drafted by Shri Odedra, is comprehensive<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

and efforts laudable considering that it is first duly<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive.<br />

approved plan.<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

Plan is still valid ;as planned Biodiversity and<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

socio-economic studies of Maldharies have been<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

carried out by GEER .<br />

Fair<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good ü<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />

3 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

Flora! values better safe guarded than potential<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

values of wild mammalian browsers and grazers,<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

scrub land frugivorous birds, reptiles, etc.<br />

Fair ü<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

There is no institutional mechanism for such<br />

Poor ü<br />

participation in planning.<br />

consultations , even statutory requirement of<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

having Hon. Warden and Advisory committee [<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

Section 33- B] not in place.<br />

Good<br />

processes.<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

Very good<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

restoration.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

Water conservation measures are note worthy<br />

and have given excellent results ; Lantana<br />

invasion control measures in place but attention<br />

need also be focused on Acacia Senegal<br />

proliferation. Soil Conservation need priority .<br />

How ever, basic cause of habitat damage need<br />

be controlled through relocation of Maldharies at<br />

least on periphery is pre requisite.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />

| 4


2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

Fair<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

There are on going Cheetal reintroduction<br />

attempts , may give priority to browser species<br />

like Sambhar and augment suitable antelopes.<br />

But such an activity to be preceded by<br />

restrictions on domestic animals that have<br />

dominated habitat. Aim of Lion reintroduction<br />

needs serious rethinking in view of observations<br />

in the report by GEER foundation.<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy. Poor ü Application of guidelines regards "Eco sensitive<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

areas" need be examined after critical appraisal<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

of threats due to industries in close proximity;<br />

Good<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

impacts of habitations within and close to<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

sanctuary have been appreciated but restrictions<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

under section 27 not implemented rigorously.<br />

Biomass consumed by domestic cattle is<br />

Very good<br />

transformed into Milk / milk products .cow dung<br />

and is exported out ( at least dung need be<br />

recycled.).Pol icy decision on restrictions \<br />

relocation urgently called for.<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Relationship between human population and<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

is detrimental to habitat, present management<br />

wilderness values, within PAs is not symbiotic but<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

thus does not see "Conflicts" within PA. Relations<br />

Good<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

in fringe areas are cordial.<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />

5 |


2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

PA occupies central position in the landscape<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

and protects watershed .<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Fair<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

Additional positions indicated in the Management<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

Plan not yet provided , however available<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

personnel utilized optimally.<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated .<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />

| 6


3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

are never released in time.<br />

Poor<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released<br />

in time.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

Main thrust is on moisture conservation ,<br />

rehabilitation of habitat and remote sensing data<br />

does indicate habitat recovery. Resettlement yet<br />

to become core activity.<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

GEER foundation has prov ided much needed<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

technical inputs , there is little people support for<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

population estimation exercises .<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good ü<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />

7 |


4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

There are experienced field workers and staff<br />

Poor<br />

in the site.<br />

receives refresher trainings for time to time, PA<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

manager does not consider lack of trained staff<br />

Fair ü<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

as limitation.<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

Poor<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

Other than Eco development activities in<br />

Poor ü<br />

management.<br />

periphery which gets good response ,public<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

participation is limited and opportunistic.<br />

Fair<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

Good<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />

management.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />

| 8


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

Democratic institutions are well established<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

institution of Lokayukta is in place . The senior<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

Manager opines that the management is alert<br />

and responsive.<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

Substantial issues addressed by the<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

management.<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Fair<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

Gujarat Bio diversity strategy and action plan<br />

Poor ü<br />

publicly available.<br />

is in place ; GEER foundation has also<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

published good data .Web site being made<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

available but management issues are not<br />

Fair<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

generally debated.<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of Very good<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />

9 |


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant<br />

protected area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Tourism potentials of Kileshwar temple,<br />

Ghumali historical sites irrigation dams utilized<br />

but wild interpretation /education potentials of<br />

the PA are not fully developed , Nature camps<br />

be held at number of places including<br />

Satvirda. Maharaja Khengar's contribution to<br />

wild life conservation being note worthy ,<br />

"Khengar willa" could be a focal point for<br />

nature interpretation.<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

Population estimation exercises for herbivores<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

and carnivores are carried out regularly ;<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

vegetation monitoring on scientific lines<br />

Fair<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

recommended. F.S.I.'s remote sensing tree<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

cover monitoring being used. GEER<br />

Good ü<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

foundation has brought out comprehensive<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

data base as a bench mark.<br />

reporting of management related trends Very good<br />

undertaken.<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of<br />

infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

Present scenario is considered adequate.<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />

| 10


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Status of endangered floral components is<br />

improving. As habitat recovery is good , over<br />

all position is stable<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

Grazing is leading to " biotic" climax that has<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

preponderance of Acacia Senegal<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

jeopardizing natives to some extent but<br />

Fair ü<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

riparian zones have improved. Typical<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

elements of scrub grass lands need be<br />

Good<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

nurtured. Some communities will certainly be<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

sustained.<br />

Very good<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

Not all the threats abated or minimized.<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />

11 |


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

Porbunder, Ranavav get sustained potable<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

water supply form Pas but this contribution<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

need be high lighted. Eco development<br />

Fair ü<br />

supportive.<br />

inputs have helped in getting support.<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

GEER Foundation \Gujarat Forest Dept.<br />

publication high lights interesting history,<br />

Ghumat was an ancient capital. Maldharis<br />

have unique and rich culture that needs<br />

show casing. Khengar whilla ,can be a focal<br />

point to remember contribution of erstwhile<br />

rulers of this area.<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 16<br />

2. Planning 9 10 100 63<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 30<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 33<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 24<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 34<br />

Total 32 330 200<br />

Overall Score<br />

61%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)<br />

| 12


2. Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

13 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

Poor<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

assessed.<br />

Poor<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good ü<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Poor<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Fair ü<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

| 14


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

categorized.<br />

Fair<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

Poor<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good ü<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

15 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Poor<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Fair<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good ü<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

participation in planning.<br />

Poor<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

| 16


2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for<br />

Fair<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

17 |


2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Poor<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Fair<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

| 18


3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

are never released in time.<br />

Poor<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

management of the site.<br />

Poor<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good ü<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

19 |


4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

in the site.<br />

Poor<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair ü<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

Poor<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

| 20


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

complaints.<br />

Poor<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Fair<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good ü<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

21 |


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance Good ü<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Very good<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

Poor<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good ü<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

| 22


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Good ü<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Very good<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Poor<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Fair<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

have enhanced.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

23 |


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

hostile.<br />

Poor<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

Poor<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Fair<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is Good ü<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Very good<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 20<br />

2. Planning 9 10 100 75<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 30<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 30<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 32.5<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 45<br />

Total 32 330 232.5<br />

Overall Score<br />

70%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

| 24


3. Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />

Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />

25 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

Poor<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

assessed.<br />

Poor<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good ü<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Poor<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Fair ü<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />

| 26


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

categorized.<br />

Fair<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

Poor<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good ü<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />

27 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Poor<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

participation in planning.<br />

Poor<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good ü<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />

| 28


2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for<br />

Fair<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

Not applicable<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />

29 |


2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

Being considered for Biosphere Reserve,<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

encompassing Goa and Maharashtra states’<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

PAs.<br />

Fair<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />

| 30


3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

are never released in time.<br />

Poor<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority ac tion and some funds released Fair ü<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

management of the site.<br />

Poor ü<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />

31 |


4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Out of 60 Beat Guards, 38 positions are vacant.<br />

Poor ü<br />

in the site.<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

Poor<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />

| 32


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

complaints.<br />

Poor<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no i nformation on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Fair<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good ü<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />

33 |


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair ü<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance Good<br />

PA values.<br />

Al l visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Very good<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

Poor<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />

| 34


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Not monitored at regular intervals.<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Poor<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Fair<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

have enhanced.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />

35 |


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

hostile.<br />

Poor<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

Poor<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Fair<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is Good ü<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Very good<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 17.5<br />

2. Planning 9 10 90 65<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 25<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 25<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 25<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 40<br />

Total 32 320 197.5<br />

Overall Score<br />

62%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karnataka)<br />

| 36


4. Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />

Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />

37 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

The values are well documented &assessed but<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

monitoring needs lot of improvement.<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

assessed.<br />

Poor<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good ü<br />

The threats are well documented and assessed.<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

The site has high grazing pressure from nearly<br />

Poor ü<br />

interference.<br />

80000 sheeps & goats during May to September<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

not only from the 42 villages falling in buffer area<br />

Fair<br />

interference.<br />

of these PAs but some also from far off Mori &<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

Sandra areas. Gujar buffalo herds from Rajaji<br />

Good<br />

interference.<br />

NP/DDun FD & even from Shivalik Forest<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

Division of U.P. also migrate into these PAs<br />

interference.<br />

during above period. There are nearly fifty Gujjar<br />

Deras all over the PAs. Extraction of medicinal<br />

plants, grazing by local cattle and fuel wood and<br />

timber collection by local people is also<br />

significant. The final notification of the National<br />

Park has yet not been issued. Though, intention<br />

notification had been issued in 1990. Govind<br />

WLS out of which Govind NP has been carved<br />

Very good<br />

out was notified in 1955 but due to Supreme<br />

Court judgments rights of timber and other forest<br />

produce have been stopped but there is no<br />

alternative source of these demands as a result<br />

there is constant conflict. A proposal to<br />

redelineate the boundaries of WLS and part of<br />

NP was sent to GoI but the same has been<br />

turned down. The antagonism of local people<br />

continues due to which final notification is not<br />

coming.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />

| 38


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

The entire 472 km 2 of Govind NP has been<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

designated as core zone & the Govind WLs with<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

an area of 486 km 2 has been designated as<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

buffer zone. Both the PAs are treated as ecorestoration<br />

zone due to heavy biotic pressure.<br />

Good ü<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

Some 6 sites have been designated as tourism<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

zone. 42 villages with in Govind WLs & 17<br />

Very good<br />

villages with in 5km from PA boundary have been<br />

included in Eco development zone.<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

There is a combined management plan for<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

Govind NP & WLS which has been prepared in<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive.<br />

1999-2000& will be operati ve till 2008-09. This is<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

the first MP and would need a interim review &<br />

Good ü<br />

Plan.<br />

updating at once.<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />

participatory process.<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

The current Management plan is the first one and<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

has not been revised or updated so far.<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

Because of difficult geographic & climatic<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

conditions the site specially the core area of NP<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

does safe guard the high biodiversity values of<br />

Fair ü<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

flora & fauna but high biotic pressure needs to be<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

reduced.<br />

Good<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

Very good<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />

39 |


2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

Except the eco-development and tourism<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

activities there is little participation of<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü stakeholders in planning.<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

Habitat restoration programmes such as<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

checking soil erosion, assisted natural<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

regeneration of Oaks, Fodder development & fire<br />

protection have been planned in the<br />

restoration.<br />

management plan & the actual work is done<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

based on availability of funds but monitoring<br />

Good ü<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

needs more attention.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />

No introduction ever planned or done.<br />

Poor _<br />

adhoc.<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair _<br />

programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Good _<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good _<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Though long range & short range patrolling has<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

been planned recently as a anti poaching<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strategy but due to lack of sufficient man power &<br />

Good ü<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

training in mountaineering & other high attitude<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

traits the protection strategy is still weak. There is<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

no strategy to monitor the activities of shepherds<br />

Very good<br />

& Gujars who visit interior parts of the PA &<br />

roam freely during May to September.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />

| 40


2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

The human wildlife conflicts are mainly due to<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

black bear, occasional cattle lifting by leopards in<br />

crop raiding by wild boar, mauling by Himalayan<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

the villages & killing of sheeps & goats in high<br />

Good<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

altitude pastures by snow leopard, Brown bear &<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

Leopard. For cases taking place in villages<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

compensation is paid in case of killing & injuring<br />

Very good<br />

of humans & killing of cattle but no compensation<br />

is paid when killing takes place inside PA.<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

There is hardly any integration into wider<br />

Poor ü<br />

landscape.<br />

ecological network which exists in neighboring<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

Tons FD and Shimla wildlife Division of H.P.<br />

Fair<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Some preliminary discussion was made by WLW<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

with DFO Shimla WL Division recently. This<br />

Good<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

needs to be taken further.<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

Very good<br />

landscape.<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

Though all available personnel are explicitly<br />

allocated for PA Management but due to<br />

shortage to sanctioned posts( all 6 posts of<br />

Foresters vacant), higher average age of frontline<br />

staff, lack of training & equipment for high altitude<br />

trekking & lack of resources for such difficult &<br />

climatically harsh area their systematic linkage to<br />

management objectives is not possible.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />

41 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

There is only one vehicle with Wildlife Warden<br />

Purola which is enough as there are hardly any<br />

motor roads inside PA. Wireless sets are<br />

available at all important locations and are in<br />

working order. Only few firearms are available<br />

with frontline staff. Large number of buildings<br />

including field accommodation, office buildings of<br />

RFOs & FRH are very old & need renovation/<br />

replacement.<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

are never released in time.<br />

Poor<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released<br />

in time.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

The total allocation of funds for work component<br />

both in Govind NP & WLS & funds provided by<br />

Centrally sponsored scheme as against the total<br />

fund allocation during last 5 years is as under.<br />

Year Total Allocation Allocation under<br />

CSS<br />

% (sd)<br />

2001-02 112.35 7.00 6<br />

2002-03 135.38 14.10 10<br />

2003-04 76.79 11.50 7<br />

2004-05 44.16 13.80 31<br />

2005-06 122.52 20.50 17<br />

Note: In 2001-02 and 2002-03 major<br />

allocation was under biodiversity component of<br />

World Bank aided forestry project. Most of the<br />

fund were used for creation/renovation of fixed<br />

assets like road, bridges, buildings etc. which is<br />

necessary due to frequent damages done by<br />

cloud bursts/heavy rains and fragile geology of<br />

the area. Very little funds were used for habitat<br />

improvement and anti-poaching activities.<br />

Release of funds by State Govt. were not timely<br />

in most of the years. The following special points<br />

are brought out.<br />

1. There has been great inconsistency in<br />

availability of funds both from Govt. of <strong>India</strong> and<br />

from State Govt.<br />

2. Higher allocation in 2005-06 is due to<br />

availability of funds from 12 th Finance<br />

Commission and State Tourism Department.<br />

3. The MEE is based on availability of funds<br />

from all sources and not from GOI alone.<br />

Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />

| 42


3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

There was no NGO support available to these<br />

Poor ü<br />

management of the site.<br />

PAs.<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

Fair<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Very good<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

The resource both human & financial is<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü inadequate considering the vast areas, difficult<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

geographical terrain, tough climatic conditions,<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks.<br />

number of villages requiring eco-development &<br />

the presence of large number of<br />

Very good<br />

rare/endangered species of flora & fauna & the<br />

high level of biotic pressures.<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

None is trained in regular wildlife course. ROs &<br />

Poor<br />

in the site.<br />

ü Fgds. got two week refresher training at Corbett<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

Wildlife Tanning Centre Kalagarh.<br />

Fair<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />

43 |


4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

The staff performance management of available<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

staff is linked to achievement of management<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

objectives.<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

Public participation is limited to ecodevelopment,<br />

tourism management & man<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

power availability for various works<br />

Fair ü<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

undertaken in PAs. Due to non allocation of<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

funds for eco-development this activity is<br />

Good<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

generally neglected.<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />

management.<br />

4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

The complaints are routinely addressed<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

without much of follow up.<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />

| 44


4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

All the 42 villages within PAs & many more<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

outside PAs are resource dependant on PAs.<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

In the absence of final notification of NP & non<br />

Fair ü<br />

management.<br />

settlement of rights in the WLS, there is hardly<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

any restriction on resource use. During World<br />

Good<br />

by PA management.<br />

Bank aided Forestry project (1998-2003) ecodevelopment<br />

committees were formed with<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

adequate representation of women but after<br />

Very good<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

project withdrawal the committees are now<br />

almost defunct.<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

assets.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

The management plan contains adequate<br />

information but hardly any public person other<br />

than researchers have access to it. The<br />

brochure of the PAs has limited information<br />

mostly of visitor interest which is publicly<br />

available .It would be desirable to put<br />

Management Plan in district public library.<br />

5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant<br />

protected area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

These is enormous tourist potential such as:<br />

‣ Har-ki-Dun and Changsil treks.<br />

‣ Mountaineering to Swargarohini,<br />

Kedarkantha and black peaks.<br />

‣ Ruinsiara valley trek.<br />

Good number of visitors go to these places in<br />

summer and rainy season. Information centre<br />

have been set up at Himari, Naitwar and<br />

Sankari. The website of Govind NP & WLS is<br />

under preparation. The Forest Rest Houses<br />

on trek routes are reasonably good and in<br />

great demand. Registration of Guides and<br />

porters has been done. Tented<br />

accommodation in FRH compounds are also<br />

proposed.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />

45 |


5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

This is for the first time that any evaluation at<br />

Poor ü<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

Govt. of <strong>India</strong> level has been undertaken.<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

Some monitoring during World Bank aided<br />

Fair<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

project was also undertaken. There is no<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

systematic evaluation for management related<br />

Good<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

trends.<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends Very good<br />

undertaken.<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The list of infrastructures is provided in the<br />

Management Plan & the maintenance<br />

schedule is made year wise &inspected by<br />

higher officers but the fund availability is<br />

always uncertain.<br />

6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable. Fair ü<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

Reliable estimations of population of<br />

threatened/engaged species is difficult due<br />

to difficult terrain & limited & untrained<br />

manpower. However rough estimates are<br />

prepared every year for all important species<br />

which may not be reliable due to unscientific<br />

methods that are employed for preparation<br />

of such estimates.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />

| 46


6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

Due to heavy grazing pressure & absence of<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

regular monitoring it is difficult to assess the<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

biological community structure.<br />

Fair ü<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

Due to non-issuance of final notification of<br />

Poor ü<br />

have enhanced.<br />

NP & non settlement of rights in PAs the<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

heavy biotic pressure has remained to be<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

abated.<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Due to unique & scenic beauty & presence<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

of large species of flowering plants &<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü enchanting snow peaks at close quarters,<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

the visitor expectation are generally fulfilled.<br />

The trekking to Harkidoon offers most<br />

Very good<br />

satisfying experience in the clean & beautiful<br />

environment.<br />

6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

Due to non-settlement of rights the<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

neighbouring and adjacent communities are<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

generally non supportive of PA<br />

Fair ü<br />

supportive.<br />

Management.<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />

47 |


6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The Jaunsar-Babar cultural heritage is<br />

unique which has so far survived but there<br />

are no special efforts by PA Management to<br />

protect the same except organizing local folk<br />

dances as part of extension program.<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 17.50<br />

2. Planning 10 10 90 52.50<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 25.00<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 25.00<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 20.00<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 30.00<br />

Total 33 320 170<br />

Overall Score<br />

53%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)<br />

| 48


5. Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

49 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

This is one cluster of PAs where values of site<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

have been well documented, assessed and<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

monitored. This exercise was largely done during<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

FREE Project and later on follow up was done<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

due to personal interest taken by Sri Sanjeeva<br />

Good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Pandey the out going Director who was at the<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

helm of affairs for long time.<br />

Very good ü<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

The threats to the site values has been<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

systematically identified assessed in the<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

management plan and after the extensive<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

research input in FREE Project they have further<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

been fine tuned in the revised/updated<br />

Good<br />

assessed.<br />

Management Plan.<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

Very good ü<br />

assessed.<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

Though final notification of NP has been issued<br />

Poor<br />

interference.<br />

after settlement of rights and payment of<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

substantial compensation but grazing by<br />

Fair ü<br />

interference.<br />

shepherds has not stopped completely. Many<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

herds of goats/sheeps use the NP for transit. In<br />

Good<br />

interference.<br />

Jiwanal Valley of the NP rights of some villagers<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

have not been settled as their rights were not<br />

interference.<br />

recorded in revenue records, instead rights of the<br />

then king who ruled these villages are recorded.<br />

Parwati catchment of the NP is still not under the<br />

Very good<br />

management of Director, GHNP and grazing by<br />

large herds of sheep and goats continues.<br />

Collection of medicinal herbs has also not been<br />

stopped completely. Efforts are being made in<br />

right direction.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

| 50


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

After correctly identifying the site systematic<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

categorization with proper zones has been done.<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

Area where rights could not be purchased and<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

villagers could not be relocated has been<br />

Good<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

separately designated as Sainj Sanctuary. The<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

maximum biotic pressure on the NP was from<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

western boundary side which has been<br />

Very good ü designated as eco development zone where<br />

necessary efforts are being done to contain the<br />

pressure.<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

GHNP along with Tirthan and Sainj WLSs and<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

Ecodevelopment zone have comprehensive<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive.<br />

management plans for each PA which have been<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

up dated recently on the basis of inputs got from<br />

Good<br />

Plan.<br />

World Bank aided conservation of biodiversity<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

project and the experiences gained in<br />

Management Plan prepared through a Very good ü ecodevelopment process.<br />

participatory process.<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

The Management Plan has been updated<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

recently with inputs from COB project and MP for<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

all 3 PAs is now operative from 2005 to 2010.<br />

Fair<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

51 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

Ground work to safeguard the biodiversity values<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

of all the 3 PAs has been done except securing<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

the management of the portion of NP falling in<br />

Fair<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Parvati Valley. The enforcement part needs to be<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

strengthened further.<br />

Good ü<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

Very good<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

Stakeholder participation in planning process<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

started in the COB project (1994-99). In the main<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

ecodevelopment component of the project an<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

area of 5 km. from the Western periphery of<br />

Good<br />

processes.<br />

GHNP was notified as Eco-zone with an area of<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically Very good ü 326.6 km 2 including 61 km 2 of Tirthan WLS. The<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

zone comprised of 160 villages with 2200<br />

households and 14000 human population. After<br />

the final notification of GHNP was issued in 1999<br />

the participatory management process began<br />

and in 2000 a community based organization<br />

SAHARA (Society for Advancement of Hill and<br />

Rural Areas) was formed. Women Savings and<br />

Credit Groups (WSCGS) covering all forest<br />

dependent households were formed and<br />

financially strengthened with the help of the wage<br />

earnings from various habitat development<br />

activities of the PAs and by securing funds from<br />

Got. of <strong>India</strong> for two major medicinal plant<br />

propagation projects. The WSCGS has good<br />

sums of revolving funds with them. The aim is to<br />

make the GHNP management as 'facilitator' of<br />

community based organization involving user<br />

Groups, local NGOs, Mahila Mandals, Yuvak<br />

Mandals, Ward Development Committees and<br />

panchayats. GHNP management selected 12<br />

women from ecozone and trained them as Group<br />

Organizers to work in the villages. They have<br />

been given training in appropriate trades/<br />

subjects. They are now identifying the poor<br />

households and organizing them into small<br />

Women Saving and Credit Groups (WSCGS). 92<br />

WSCGs have been formed covering about 980<br />

women of poor HHs. Their collective savings in<br />

local banks till 2004 was 8 lakh Rupees out of<br />

which they have done alternative income<br />

generation activities and earned more than Rs.<br />

32 lakhs.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

| 52


2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

restoration.<br />

Fair<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

GHNP represents one of the few areas of some<br />

natural flora and fauna in the temperate<br />

subalpine and alpine zone of the western<br />

Himalayas, an area of high species, diversity. It is<br />

large enough with the adjacent sanctuaries of<br />

Rupibhawa, Sainj, Tirthan and Kanawar and Pin<br />

Valley NP to maintain viable populations of all<br />

plants and animal species characteristic of these<br />

zones and through remoteness and<br />

inaccessibility its protection should be easier than<br />

other areas of similar category. In global context<br />

GHNP stands out as an important conservation<br />

area in the North Western Himalayas<br />

(Biogeographic zone-2A) with global<br />

conservation significance. It is heartening to note<br />

that habitat restoration programmes in this<br />

important PA cluster are being systematically<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />

adhoc.<br />

Poor -<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair -<br />

programmes.<br />

No reintroduction ever done.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Good -<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good -<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

The best protection strategy for such a site is<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

through involvement of local people who exert<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

pressure on the PA and who have hardly any<br />

Good ü<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

alternatives. There is not much of external threat<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very Very good<br />

to the PAs, so this strategy which is the main<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

strength of the management is though slowly but<br />

working well. To deal with law breakers there are<br />

anti-poaching camps, regular patrolling and a<br />

good intelligence network in the villages.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

53 |


2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

The human wildlife conflicts in such PAs are<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

local population on forest resources and absence<br />

always acute due to complete dependence of<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

of alternatives. With the rights of people having<br />

Good ü<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

been settled through payment of compensation<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

and formation of WSCGS on a large scale and<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

involvement of local NGO such as SAHARA the<br />

conflicts can now be better addressed.<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

Efforts to create the Greater Himalayan<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

Conservation Authority (GHCA) are being made<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

to integrate this cluster of PAs into a wider<br />

Fair<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

ecological network. GHNP (754.4 km 2 ), its<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

ecozone (265.6 km 2 ) Sainj WLS (61 km 2 ). Tirthan<br />

Good ü<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

WLS (90 km 2 ). The Pin Valley NP (676<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/ Very good<br />

km 2 ),Rupibhawa WLS (738 km 2 ) and Kanawar<br />

landscape.<br />

WLS (61 km 2 ) all totaling to about 2600 km 2 area<br />

in the heart of HP if brought under one<br />

management umbrella will make it an important<br />

conservation area of N-W Himalayas with global<br />

conservation significance.<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

There has always been deficiency in the<br />

sanctioned strength which itself is not enough<br />

looking at the geography and climatic condition of<br />

the PAs. At the moment there are 7 vacancies<br />

(25%) in FGds., 1 in Dy. Ranger (12.5%) and 1 in<br />

Forest Ranger (25%). The main job of field<br />

personnel is patrolling in difficult high altitude<br />

areas. The equipment and training for such<br />

patrolling is inadequate.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

| 54


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Requirement of vehicles is only at top<br />

management l evel which is sufficient. Equipment<br />

for high altitude trekking and camping is<br />

insufficient and buildings for field staff and anti<br />

poaching camps need improvement in terms of<br />

numbers and regular maintenance.<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

The financial allocation under centrally<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

sponsored scheme 'Development of NPs &<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

WLSs' during past 5 years was as under :<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />

Year Amount Sanctioned Amount Spent<br />

in time.<br />

(lakh Rs.) (lakh Rs.)<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Good ü<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

2001-02 18.00 9.75<br />

2002-03 9.50 8.50<br />

2003-04 17.70 10.53<br />

2004-05 19.42 18.67<br />

2006-07 37.75 23.70<br />

reason for low utilization in all cases is late<br />

release of funds by State Govt. and low working<br />

period due to snowfall. In addition 20 to 25 lakh<br />

rupees are provided by State Govt. under nonplan/plan<br />

budget for salary of staff etc. During<br />

last 4 years 7 to 8 lakh Rupees were also<br />

provided by State Govt. under Ayurveda for<br />

raising of medicinal plants in Ecodevelopment<br />

zone.<br />

One very positive development is funding by<br />

NHPC (engaged in River Valley Hydro Project in<br />

Parwati Valley) to the tune of Rs. 15 crore for 8<br />

years during stage II of the project which is in<br />

progress and promise for more funds during III<br />

phase. This can be of great help if the proposed<br />

Greater Himalayan Conservation Authority<br />

comes in place. The work in these PAs under<br />

this scheme started in 2002-03 when 1.75 crore<br />

was sanctioned, then Catchment Area Treatment<br />

(CAT) plan was made and during 2005-06, Rs.<br />

61 lakh was sanctioned. For 2006-07 Rs. 3 crore<br />

has been set aside. The performance as<br />

reported under various items is a result of sum<br />

total budget and not merely budget provided by<br />

Govt. of <strong>India</strong> under CSS.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

55 |


3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

There are various local, national and<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

international NGOs supporting various<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

programmes in these PAs and SAHARA a local<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

NGO is most popular among local people.<br />

Fair<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good ü<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Because of River Valley Project money being<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

made available to this cluster there should be no<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü difficulty of funds provided that it is usefully<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

utilized.<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

The FD and Dy. Director are diploma course<br />

Poor<br />

in the site.<br />

trained from WII and one Forest Ranger is<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

certificate course trained from WII. 2 Forest<br />

Fair<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Guards are trained in wildlife training course run<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

by State Govt. There is good exposure of field<br />

Good ü<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

staff due to World Bank aided COB Project<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

(1994-99).<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

| 56


4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

Staff performance down to F.Gd level specially<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

in ecodevelopment, extension and monitoring of<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

wild animal population is directly linked to<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

achievement of management objectives.<br />

Fair<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

The description under Remarks column of 2.5<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

(planning) clearly brings out the effectiveness<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

of public participation in PA management.<br />

Fair<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good ü<br />

4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

The system is operational but no special<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

efforts have been made to make it responsive.<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

57 |


4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

This is the most positive and effective aspect<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

of the PA management of GHNP and other<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

areas under its umbrella. Formation of 92<br />

Fair<br />

management.<br />

WSCGS covering 980 poor HHS. Large<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

savings by these groups in local banks<br />

Good<br />

by PA management.<br />

undertaking alternative income generation<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

activities thereby earning over 32 lakh rupees.<br />

communities especially women are<br />

Facilitating community based organizations<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

involving user groups, local NGOs, Mahila<br />

Very good ü<br />

Mandals, Yuvak Mandals, Ward Development<br />

Committees and Panchayats are some of the<br />

highlights of this activity.<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

Adequate information in the form of<br />

Poor<br />

publicly available.<br />

management plans of all 3 PAs, Power Point<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

presentation, soft copies of MPs, short films,<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

brochures and folders etc. are available.<br />

Fair<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Exhibits in interpretation centres at Sairopa<br />

assets.<br />

and Manali also give good information.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good ü<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Interpretation Centre at Sairopa and Manali<br />

Provide adequate information to visitors.<br />

Information for community based eco-tourism<br />

is given in the brochure. The visitors have to<br />

trek and camp in open places. There are<br />

limited Forest Rest houses except at Sairopa<br />

and few other places. Parvati Valley trek is<br />

popular.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

| 58


5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

There was intensive evaluation during World<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

Bank aided COB project and reporting system<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

during 2 years after the project was also<br />

Fair<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

regular. The present evaluation will be first of<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

its kind based on IUCN guidelines.<br />

Good ü<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends Very good<br />

undertaken.<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The maintenance schedule is as per<br />

departmental norms with adequate funding<br />

from River Valley Projects. There should now<br />

not be any difficulty in maintaining the<br />

infrastructures.<br />

6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Detailed census/estimation of important<br />

species of flora and fauna was done by<br />

researchers and field staff during FREE<br />

Project which is being updated on annual<br />

basis. Baseline survey of galiforms has also<br />

been done. The population of<br />

threatened/endangered species are stable.<br />

There may be marginal increase in some<br />

species after strict protection.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

59 |


6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

Census of this level will need more scientific<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

inputs but looking at the flora, the biological<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

communities in most of the areas are<br />

Fair ü<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

supportive of native biodiversity.<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

Threats have been reduced to a<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

considerable extent after public participation<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

and education and purchase of rights in NP.<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü It will take sometime for the threats to be<br />

All threats to the site have been abated.<br />

abated provided efforts at present level are<br />

Very good<br />

continued with the same zeal.<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Due to the geographical and climatic<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

conditions only hardcore nature lovers,<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü trekkers, birdwatchers and cultural visitors<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

go to the PAs most of their expectations<br />

Very good<br />

are met.<br />

6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

With continued efforts in ecodevelopment,<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

involvement of women and community<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

base organizations, the neighbouring<br />

Fair<br />

supportive.<br />

communities are by and large supportive.<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

The scenario before 5-6 years was quite<br />

Good ü<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

opposite.<br />

All neighbours and communities<br />

Very good<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

| 60


6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration of<br />

cultural heritage assets continues, or values<br />

are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Due to involvement of local people<br />

specially women and community based<br />

organizations, the cultural heritage is being<br />

valued and protected. The street theatre<br />

through SAHARA is very popular and<br />

totally based on local culture. Kullu Valley<br />

is called the Valley of Gods and the<br />

Dushera festival which has a exclusive<br />

local touch is worth seeing. It is witnessed<br />

by large number of outsiders including<br />

foreigners..<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 25.0<br />

2. Planning 10 10 90 77.0<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 35.0<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 40.0<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 30.0<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 42.5<br />

Total 33 320 249<br />

Overall Score<br />

78%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

61 |


| 62


6. Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

63 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

Poor<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good ü<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

assessed.<br />

Poor<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good ü<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Poor<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Fair ü<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

| 64


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

categorized.<br />

Fair<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor ü<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

Poor<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good ü<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

65 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Poor<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Fair<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good ü<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

participation in planning.<br />

Poor<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good ü<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

Not applicable<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />

adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair<br />

Not applicable<br />

programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

| 66


2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Poor<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Fair<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good ü<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

67 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessm ent criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

are never released in time.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

management of the site.<br />

Poor<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

| 68


3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

in the site.<br />

Poor<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair ü<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

Poor<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Great Himalayan National Park (HP)<br />

69 |


4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good<br />

4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

complaints.<br />

Poor<br />

Complaints handling system operational but<br />

not responsive to individual issues and<br />

Fair<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

| 70


5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Fair ü<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor ü<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance Good<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Very good<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

71 |


5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

Good<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Very good<br />

6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining. Poor ü<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Poor<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Fair<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

have enhanced.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

| 72


6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor ü<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

hostile.<br />

Poor<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

Poor<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Fair<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is Good ü<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

73 |


MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 22.5<br />

2. Planning 8 10 80 57.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 27.5<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 30<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 15<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 32.5<br />

Total 33 310 185<br />

Overall Score<br />

60%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Gulf of Mannar National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

| 74


7. Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

75 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

The value are well documented in the<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

management plan and assessed and monitored<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

through annual reports and periodic census.<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

Threats are identified in the management plan<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

and assessed in annual reports<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good ü<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

The sanctuary is highly vulnerable to biotic<br />

Poor ü<br />

interference.<br />

interferences, which have been kept under<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

control through rigid protection and EDC<br />

Fair<br />

interference.<br />

Committees.<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

| 76


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

The site is well identified and demarcated with<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

clear cut zonation of core, buffer and eco-tourism<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

zone.<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

The site has got detailed and scientifically drawn<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

management plan which is valid upto 2006-2007<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

Yes action to revise the management plan has<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

already been taken in hand.<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

77 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

The values are well documented in the current<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

management plan. It adequately safeguards<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

matroflora and macrofauna.<br />

Fair<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good ü<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

Except preparation of scientific management<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

plan, the stake holders are involved in other<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

planning process.<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good ü<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

The management plan identifies details of areas<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

requiring habitat restoration including nature and<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

quantum of restoration monitoring is done by<br />

frequent field visits.<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

Spp. to be re-introduced are listed in the<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

management plan with indication of source of<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

such animals. Earlier program of re-introduction<br />

was properly monitored.<br />

programmes are in place for<br />

Fair<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

| 78


2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

The site is well covered by R.T. network. Regular<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

patrollings are done through vehicle, elephant<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

and on foot in irregular cycle spread over 24<br />

Good<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

hours.<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Man animal conflicts are mitigated by electric<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

but still some damage by elephant is there.<br />

fencing, mobile patrol party and elephant squad,<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

The site is integrated into eastern doors elephant<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

reserve and also T.C.U of WWF following ecosystem<br />

and landscape approach.<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

Fair<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good ü<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

The area has adequate committed personnels<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

located over strategic areas of the sanctuary.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

Total resources available from various sources<br />

are adequate and all staff work towards specific<br />

to management objectives.<br />

management objective.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

79 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Due to high priority given to the sanctuary it gets<br />

funding from non-plan, state plan and other<br />

department also shortage of government vehicles<br />

is addressed by hired vehicle. Some specific<br />

objectives are met up from other departments<br />

funds also.<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

Since funding comes form various sources often<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

they are not available in time. These are also<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />

subject to adhocism and person linked. However<br />

priority actions are attended.<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

NGO’s participation is limited to wildlife census,<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

public awareness program, supply of some<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

patrolling kits and occasional field training about<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

wildlife crime.<br />

Fair ü<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Very good<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

| 80


3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Though human and financial resources are<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

generally adequate, but these cannot be<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü depended upon, because there are many<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks.<br />

vacancies and fund from other sources not<br />

Very good<br />

guaranteed.<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Only few trained officers and frontline staff in<br />

Poor<br />

in the site.<br />

wildlife management.<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair ü<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

All staff work for specific management<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

objectives.<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good ü<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

Public participation is there in most of the<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

aspects of P.A. management except where<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

specific scientific and technical skill is<br />

Fair<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

required.<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

81 |


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

Most of the complaints are herd and attended,<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

but there is no register of recording all such<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

comments or complaints with note of how it is<br />

attended.<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

The demand of livelihood issues including<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

requirements of natural resource use is very<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

high only some of them could be met through<br />

Fair ü<br />

management.<br />

E.D.C eco-tourism etc.<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

Good<br />

by PA management.<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

Very good<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

Brochures booklets and hoardings are there<br />

Poor<br />

publicly available.<br />

giving general information only.<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Fair ü<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

| 82


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Visitors facilities are there in selected places<br />

which generally enhance P.A. values.<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

Management related trends are systematically<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

evaluated and reported through annual and<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

special reports in routine manner.<br />

Fair<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good ü<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Systematic inventory records are there for<br />

public assets and also its maintenance<br />

schedule including plantation and habitat<br />

improvement works. However due to fund<br />

constraints all maintenance could not be done<br />

in time.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

83 |


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

All endangered and threatened spp are<br />

either increasing or stable. Special rise is<br />

there in Rhino, Bison and Sambar<br />

population.<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

Recognised macro biological communities<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

are generally healthy and sustain native<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

biodiversity.<br />

Fair<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

Illegal felling and poaching reduced to great<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

extent but some damage from grazing, flood<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü and cement dust coming from Bhutan<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

dolomite mines remain.<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Most of the visitors can see Rhino, Bison,<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

Sambar and hog deer almost in all visits.<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

| 84


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

Panchayats and E.D.C members; including<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

tea gardens are supportive of P.A.<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

management.<br />

Fair<br />

supportive.<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Cultural heritage sites of Bania Ruins and<br />

Totos of Totopara are addressed to the<br />

extent possible and their degradation and<br />

deterioration significantly addressed.<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 17.5<br />

2. Planning 9 10 100 92.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 37.5<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 35<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 25<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 45<br />

Total 32 330 252.5<br />

Overall Score<br />

77%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

85 |


| 86


8. Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />

Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />

87 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

The value are evaluated and monitored<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good ü<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

The threats from the Ithi barrage and the hydroelectric<br />

power generation at Loktak lake has been<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

identified. But all these threats are not associated<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

with day to day management of the PA.<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good ü<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

The site has some biotic interference.<br />

Poor<br />

interference.<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Fair ü<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />

| 88


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Zonations has been done in a broader<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

dimensions. Being dominated by floating<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

vegetation, detailed may not be possible.<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

The site has management plan, which is<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

comprehensive. But (draft) has not yet been<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive.<br />

approved by Government. CWW guided the MP<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

preparation.<br />

Good<br />

Plan.<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

The time of up dating has not yet come. (2001-<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

2011)<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />

89 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

The site is safeguarding the threatened<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Biodiversity value.<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Fair<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good ü<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

State holder do participate in the planning<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

process.<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair ü<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

The second home for Sanghai has been<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

established in the vicinity of Imphal city. Hence<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

the question of the reintroduction does not arise,<br />

under the continued ecological threat from the Ithi<br />

programmes are in place for<br />

Fair ü<br />

barrage.<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />

| 90


2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Protection strategy is by and large working.<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

Being a part of Loktak Lake (Ramsar site) it is<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

automatically integrated with the wider ecological<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

network.<br />

Fair<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good ü<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

<strong>Full</strong> attention is given to the PA, as this is the<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

prized PA in Manipur.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />

91 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

By and large, the resources are well organized.<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

The recourses are not adequate.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

Resources are used as per the priority action.<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

The resources are not adequate, primarily<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />

because of the different levels of conflicts<br />

including insurgency.<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good ü<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

Some NGO support is coming to the PA.<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />

| 92


3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

PA authority do not consider that to be sufficient.<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Very less Wildlife trained persons are available.<br />

Poor<br />

in the site.<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair ü<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

Poor<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

This is mainly related to the protection of<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

Sanghai.<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />

93 |


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

complaints.<br />

Poor<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

Number of eco-development activities have<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

been taken up.<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Fair<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

Reports are available. Booklets, Posters, T-<br />

Poor<br />

publicly available.<br />

shirts are all available. People know about the<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

PA, and has a lot of understanding about the<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

problem in the protection of the PA.<br />

Fair<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />

| 94


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Some facilities are available. But because of<br />

the insurgency problems, even these are<br />

under utilized.<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

Poor<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good ü<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

These are kept systematically.<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />

95 |


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The census is done systematically. Now WII<br />

has got a project on Sanghai. They are<br />

helping in the census.<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

The emphasis only on Sanghai. Some study<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

and reports are available on birds and<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

mammals.<br />

Fair<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

The threat is a permanent nature, and as<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

reported the Barrage is gradually degrading<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü the “Phundis”. The solution cannot come<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

from Forest department alone. Political will<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

to save it is a must.<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

People can see the unique vegetation the<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

“Phundi”. The sighting depends on the time<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü and chance.<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />

| 96


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

Good support.<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

This species “sanghai” has been identified<br />

as cultural asset. Hence, a lot of support<br />

form their community is being offered.<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 25<br />

2. Planning 9 10 100 72.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 35<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 32.5<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 32.5<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 47.5<br />

Total 32 330 245<br />

Overall Score<br />

74%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keibul Lamjao National Park (Manipur)<br />

97 |


| 98


9. Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />

Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />

99 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

The site has been studied extensively by<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

researchers from B.N.H.S, SACON , WII ,<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

Dehradun and host of other organizations as a<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

result there are Doctoral studies [15] and<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

hundreds of research papers .Site values are<br />

Good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

scientifically assessed ,studied and monitored.<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

Bird count involving volunteers , is carried out<br />

Very good ü<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

regularly.<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

Threats include paucity/ erratic water supply,<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

invasion of weeds, biotic pressures resulting in<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

forest fires /grazing, industrial pollution ,<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

excessive or uncontrolled tourists visitation , feral<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

cattle /dogs etc. Being identified as World<br />

Good<br />

assessed.<br />

Heritage as also Ramsar convention site is being<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

critically watched over by inter national agencies.<br />

assessed. Very good ü Air quality is being monitored in context of<br />

proximity to major industries<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

National park has well defined boundaries and is<br />

Poor<br />

interference.<br />

fenced by masonry wall. How ever, there is no<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

cushion to contain high pressures to meet<br />

Fair<br />

interference.<br />

bonafied needs.<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good ü<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />

| 100


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

In the absence of buffer around the park<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

limitations are severe but never the less, well<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

designed , apt zonation provided for. Scope for<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

Eco-development activity well defined; possibility<br />

Good ü<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

to excise areas under pressure need be pursued.<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

Ms Shruti Sharma/ B.Praveen,’s plan is science<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

based, comprehensive and seen to have<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive.<br />

incorporated inputs form different sources .<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

System for routine and systematic updating in<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

place.<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good ü<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />

101 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

Initially ,Siberian crane was central to<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

conservation values but there are other equally<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

important values and overall planning addresses<br />

Fair<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

these needs.<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good ü<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

Being N.P. scope of stake holders in traditional<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

way is limited ;Consultations within now available<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

frame work( Advisory committee under Sec 33 B,<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

Amended Wild life [Protection] Act , need be<br />

Good ü<br />

processes.<br />

availed. Ear marking funds from MP.’s quota is<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

an indication of elected representatives interest in<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

park management. Contribution of WWF<br />

Very good<br />

/swarovasky in establishment of Nature<br />

interpretation center is a welcome feature.<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

Quantity and time of water release , into the Park<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

, in itself is a major tool for maintaining ecological<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

status; controlled forest fire / grazing, removal of<br />

grass /inflammable material to reduce fire hazard<br />

restoration.<br />

;eradication of invasive aquatic and terrestrial<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

weeds have been given importance due to it<br />

Good ü<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

For biological control on Feral cattle /dogs it is<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

necessary to re introduce Leopard if sustainable.<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

Park is to small to hold viable Tiger population .<br />

Re introduction of Siberian crane is a<br />

programmes are in place for<br />

Fair<br />

multifaceted issue and need inter national co<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

operation too. Present planning process do not<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

Good ü address these issues in depth.<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />

| 102


2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Plan includes prescriptions to raise height of wall,<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

repair or newly construct where ever essential;<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

flying squad exists .For forest fire prevention<br />

Good ü<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

support of stake holders ensured. (Sharing thatch<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

grass / fuel wood are issues on which policy<br />

Very good<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

decisions need be given early)<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Grass cutting /removal of firewood will helping<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

earning good will.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

Present scenario have limited options so far as<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

duly established PAs but through concept of<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

Community reserve avifauna potentials of private<br />

Fair ü<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

lands could b harnessed.<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

With area of 29km2 , park staff headed by DyCF<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

who is assisted by ACF [1] , RFOs [3] and<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

adequate subordinate staff is appropriate ;<br />

assignment of duties and resource allocation<br />

to management objectives.<br />

suitable to achieve management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />

103 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

Jeeps [2] , motor cycles [6],canters ,tractors,<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

electra vans, tempo etc for mobility, wireless net<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

work for communication ,fire arms for protection ,<br />

administrative and residential quarters are<br />

to management objectives.<br />

available to staff.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

Staff for research ,monitoring was not in<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

place[Research officer]<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

Considerable inputs in the sphere of research<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

but it may not always need based for the PA<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management. WWF has provided vehicles and<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

interpretation center.<br />

Fair<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good ü<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />

| 104


3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

GoI, as also state allocations inadequate,<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

considering site needs. Human resources<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü sufficient.<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Site has experienced staff , subordinates are<br />

Poor<br />

in the site.<br />

locals and thus have limitations [para 2.4.6, SEC<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

report ] . Though not trained in a formal manner<br />

Fair<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

,in-service training/orientation given to staff<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

,meets demand at that level.<br />

Good ü<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

Very good<br />

posted in the site.<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

Conventional management control is , in away,<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

ensures link as desired but specifically designed<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

system not in place.<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />

105 |


4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

WWF conducted number of sensitization<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

programs for people around the park ;<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

department has carried out Eco- development<br />

Fair ü<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

activities; all this have generated much<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

needed good will for the Park management.<br />

Good<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Riksha pullers and guides , the stake holders<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

do render assistance in protection / forest fire<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

control as expected under section 27 ( 2 )(a)<br />

management.<br />

to (e) Wild Life {Protection ] Act. An early<br />

Very good<br />

resolution on thatch grass and firewood<br />

collection/distribution amongst peripheral<br />

villages (on lines of section 29) at the policy<br />

level is necessary.<br />

4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

Park manager opines that generally stake<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

holders are contented ; entries in visitor books<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

at reception and Interpretation centers were in<br />

support. Media at local/state /national levels<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

has been alert and responsive judging from<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

the coverage that park receives.<br />

Good ü<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response Very good<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

Being National Park technically area is free of<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

any rights and concessions; but peculiarity of<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

having no buffer around it needs careful<br />

Fair ü<br />

management.<br />

handling at the legal / policy level.<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

Good<br />

by PA management.<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

Very good<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />

| 106


5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

assets.<br />

Fair<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

With large number of on going research<br />

projects, information on management aspects<br />

get media attention e.g. removal of grass<br />

,grazing , fire control, likely pollution impact ,<br />

status of avifauna etc, etc. Advisory<br />

committee as provided under WL (P ) Act,<br />

Amendment 2002 need be constituted.<br />

5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Park is small and mostly there are day visitors<br />

;Rajasthan T.D.Corpo./ I.T.D.C./ private hotel<br />

provide camping facilities . Tourist interface<br />

with park through “riksha “ drivers , guides is<br />

well managed; both are good job as park<br />

ambassadors. Dr.Salim Ali Interpretation<br />

center is of high quality. Road side signage<br />

need improvement.<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

As an IBA and world heritage site , critical<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

avifauna population estimations is an going<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

exercise which is transparent.<br />

Fair<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good ü<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />

107 |


5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Schedules generally in place but requisite<br />

funds wanting.<br />

6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Park’s special feature is migratory birds ,<br />

park is a staging ground for in /out ward<br />

journeys for birds coming from near and far<br />

off places like palearctic regions This year<br />

mainly due to less rainfall wet lands have not<br />

filled up. How ever, there have been bad<br />

years in past followed by quick recovery.<br />

How resilient is the system , will be tested<br />

soon ; problem of sustained and timely water<br />

supply is a key element with multidimensions.<br />

Presently, status is poor.<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

This man made eco system needs careful<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

handling , wet lands are not climatic climax,<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

different gilds require specific conditions and<br />

Fair ü<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

thus constant moderating of local factors<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

essential ,it is an on going continuous<br />

Good<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

process .Basic design and systems are<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

sound. Long term solution to timely and<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

adequate water supply is a key that need be<br />

Very good<br />

resolved or else only few elements have a<br />

future in this area.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />

| 108


6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

Some threats to site have been abated ;<br />

Poor ü<br />

have enhanced.<br />

{short comings not at the field level}.Attempt<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

to use ground water to augment water<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

supply as seen on ground is laudable.<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Barring water scarcity years, visit is<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

rewarding to average visitor<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

Most neighbors / communities are<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

supportive<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Planned approach to management under<br />

way, but lot need be done at policy levels.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />

109 |


MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 29<br />

2. Planning 9 10 100 78<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 44<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 32<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 31<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 36<br />

Total 32 330 250<br />

Overall Score<br />

76%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)<br />

| 110


10. Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />

Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />

111 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

Values identified and systematically recorded<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good ü<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

Threats are systematically identified, on all aspects<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good ü<br />

1.3 Is the site free from outside human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

The site do not have very high biotic interference ,<br />

Poor<br />

interference.<br />

as the site almost inaccessible from different<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

sides. There is international boarder in northern<br />

Fair<br />

interference.<br />

and eastern sides.<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good ü<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />

| 112


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP /WLS) and categorized (in terms of Zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Site (habitat)identified of various identified<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

threatened species, notification for that has been<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

done.<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good<br />

Site identified correctly systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor ü The comprehensive management plan is under<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

preparation.<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive<br />

Non-availability of the Topo sheets of the sensitive<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

boarder areas is one of the reason ( only 44 out of<br />

Good<br />

Plan<br />

77 available)<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />

participatory process.<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

Does not arise<br />

Poor ü<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

ad-hoc manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated Very good<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />

113 |


2.4 Does the site safeguard the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

Sites does protect a large number of the<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

threatened species.<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Fair<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good ü<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

The majority of the stakeholders do participate in<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

the planning.<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

The habitat restoration programme is well<br />

Poor<br />

entirely ad-hoc.<br />

planned. But due to the remoteness of the<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

various sites and lack of man power, big plans<br />

cannot be taken up.<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />

The reintroduction programme has not yet been<br />

Poor<br />

adhoc.<br />

properly designed, but some planning has been<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

done<br />

programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair ü<br />

programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />

| 114


2.8 Does the site have an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

The protection strategy of the forest department<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

is good and effective. The department knows the<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

dynamic problems.<br />

Good<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Site is capable of mitigating human-wildlife<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

conflicts, but it may not be immediate<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network /<br />

The site is located in the vast Himalayan<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

landscape, hence there is no major activities the<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

department can take. the site is an integral part of<br />

Fair<br />

into a network / landscape.<br />

the broad Himalayan alpine and sub-alpines land<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

scape and ecosystem<br />

Good ü<br />

network / landscape<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network<br />

Very good<br />

/ landscape.<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are the personnel well organized and managed with access adequate recourses ?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

Personnel though few in number are highly<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management<br />

motivated. Personnel are allocated, as far as<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

practicable, towards achievement of the<br />

management goal.<br />

to management objectives<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />

115 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resource explicitly allocated<br />

There are very few vehicles and for that matter<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

any form of other infrastructure. But what ever<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for<br />

PA management. but not systematically Fair<br />

the resources available to the management that<br />

has not been utilised towards the achievement of<br />

linked to management objectives.<br />

the specific management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked with to priority actions and are funds released<br />

timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

In a number of cases the specific allocation of<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

funds is being made to achieve specific<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

management objectives<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

NGO made very little contribution or actively<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

participated. Only training has been offered to<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

forest staff.<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />

| 116


3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor ü Compared to the areas to be covered (18000 sq<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

km) of inaccessible but very vital areas,<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

resource is extremely insufficient.<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained man power resources for effective management ?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and front lone<br />

Very few trained man power<br />

Poor<br />

staff in the site .<br />

Few trained officers and front line staff who<br />

are posted in the site<br />

Fair ü<br />

A large number of trained officers and front<br />

lined staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and front line staff<br />

are posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

With a very small staff strength, linkage is being<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

done as far as practicable, to achieve the<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management objective.<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />

117 |


4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

The public participation is praise worthy. This<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

is systematically done. The example of selling<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

of cattle by the villagers in some cases, due<br />

Fair<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

to the stop<strong>page</strong> of the grazing by forest<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

department, is an indicator of the success and<br />

Good<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

the relationship maintained between the<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

villagers and the management.<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good ü<br />

4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

There is a responsive system of handling<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

complains, but all the complains cannot be<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

addressed.<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

The livelihood issues are being addressed to<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

some extent. The population been<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

comparatively less in the fringe areas, hence<br />

Fair<br />

management.<br />

alternative livelihood are being suggested and<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are<br />

market linkages are being done by<br />

Good ü<br />

addressed by PA management.<br />

management<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

Very good<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />

| 118


5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

The information on important wildlife and the<br />

Poor<br />

publicly available.<br />

natural resources like rivers and streams are<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

available. Leaflets and brushers are available,<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

apart from TV and Radio broadcasting.<br />

Fair<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good ü<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The tourism services are not adequate. The<br />

Department of Tourism in collaboration with<br />

the department of forest take up issues of<br />

tourism. There are enormous opportunities on<br />

the expansion of the tourism in collaboration<br />

with the department of forest.<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

The connectivity with the Head quarters and<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

the field is very good.<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good ü<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />

119 |


5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

It is done<br />

6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

It is difficult to assess. There is no regular<br />

census of all the Threatened species<br />

available. This is mainly because of the<br />

terrain and the methodology for specific<br />

species. The photographic records of the<br />

important species are available.<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacing that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

As the situation prevails, it is expected that<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

the native population will flourish.<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Fair<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />

| 120


6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

Because of the good relation with the fringe<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

villagers , a number of threats have been<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

abated.<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

The expectations of the visitors are normally<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

met, in terms of information, etc. and offering<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü assistance in the area of such a terrain.<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

The relationship is very good. Intelligence<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

net work is also in place.<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good ü<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The management has fairly good idea about<br />

the specific cultural assets, of the Lepcha<br />

and Bhutia communities. They are motivated<br />

to protect the assets.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />

121 |


MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 27.5<br />

2. Planning 10 10 100 69.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 27.5<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 37.5<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 27.5<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 47.5<br />

Total 39 330 237<br />

Overall Score<br />

72 %<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Khangchendzonga National Park (Sikkim)<br />

| 122


11. Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

123 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

The values of Kistwar National Park are generally<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

assessed in the Management Plan, which has<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

recently been prepared. The monitoring is done in<br />

Fair ü<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

a limited area of about 180 km 2 (out of 425 km 2 ),<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

which is under the control of wildlife department<br />

Good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

though the intention notification was issued in<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

1981.<br />

Very good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

Very general threats like poaching, grazing,<br />

Poor ü<br />

assessed.<br />

woodcutting, fire, snow and insects are<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

mentioned in the management plan but they have<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

not been assessed for different parts of the<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

National Park.<br />

Good<br />

asses sed.<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

Very good<br />

assessed.<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

Only the glacial, snow bound and rugged upper<br />

Poor ü<br />

interference.<br />

reaches of the Park are free from biotic<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interferences due to being unapproachable. In all<br />

Fair<br />

interference.<br />

other approachable areas the site has extensive<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

human and biotic interference. There are over 20<br />

Good<br />

interference.<br />

villages inside the Park and equal number in the<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

immediate surrounds. 30 to 40 thousand sheep<br />

interference.<br />

and goats from neighboring and far off areas<br />

remain on the high altitude pastures from May to<br />

September. Dependence of villagers for timber,<br />

fuel and fodder on the National Park is total.<br />

Medicinal plants are also extracted. NHPC has<br />

proposed two Hydroelectric Projects inside the<br />

Park for which 9 km 2 land is being demanded.<br />

State Govt. is keen to get these projects through<br />

but they have not yet been cleared by Govt. of<br />

<strong>India</strong> under Forest Conservation Act. 8 Km.<br />

Very good<br />

motor road is under construction inside the NP<br />

and felling of oak and other trees is being done<br />

freely. Construction of road and buildings at Dam<br />

site in clear violation of FCA is a serious matter.<br />

There are some 25 'Bahaks' (high altitude<br />

pastures) inside the National Park over which<br />

villagers from neighbouring areas have rights of<br />

grazing and Bakarwals and Gujjars who are<br />

seasonal nomads keep over 25000 cattle heads<br />

(sheep, goats, horses, buffalos) from May to<br />

September.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

| 124


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Though 70% of the NP area is proposed to be<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

managed as core zone and rest as buffer zone<br />

Fair ü<br />

categorized.<br />

as mentioned in the management plan but on<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

ground there is hardly any demarcation or<br />

Good<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

restrictions. The intention notification of the N.P.<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

issued as far back as 1981 is seriously defective<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

as it includes the private land holdings and<br />

villages inside. No settlement proceedings have<br />

been undertaken nor any efforts are visible in this<br />

direction. The only way to make the NP viable for<br />

long term is to exclude the villages and private<br />

lands along with adjoining RF compartments<br />

during the settlement Project and make this a<br />

Very good<br />

Ecorestoration zone on the lines of GHNP in HP<br />

& keep the area under the management of NP<br />

authorities and carryout intensive<br />

ecodevelopment activities in this area. The Park<br />

area on the ground is reported to be 1790. 88km 2<br />

where as in notification only 425 km 2 area is<br />

mentioned. By excluding villages and few<br />

compartments of RF for practicing bonafide rights<br />

the viability of the NP will be ensured.<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

A Management Plan has recently been prepared<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

for 5 years (2006-2011) but the values and<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive.<br />

threats to site values have not been properly<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

identified and needs review with the help of some<br />

Good ü<br />

Plan.<br />

competent naturalist/researchers. The present<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Regional Wildlife Warden has the potential to get<br />

Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />

it properly prepared under his guidance.<br />

participatory process.<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

The Management Plan has just been prepared<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

and needs review and proper management<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

prescriptions.<br />

Fair ü<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

Good<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated Very good<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

125 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

Due to difficult geographical configuration of the<br />

Poor ü<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

site it has great potential for many threatened<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

species of fauna and flora but the heavy biotic<br />

Fair<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

pressure makes the PA vulnerable.<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

Due to faulty notification and lack of efforts to<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

remedy the same there is general apathy of local<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü villagers to participate in the planning. However,<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

scientists are involved in census operations and<br />

Good<br />

processes.<br />

PA management helps the interior villages in<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

maintenance of footpaths and bridges. Local<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

people participate in different activities as<br />

Very good<br />

labourers and at times also provide intelligence to<br />

PA Managers.<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

Being a high altitude NP very little habitat<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

restoration programme are carried out except<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair ü<br />

occasional planting and pasture development. In<br />

fact the best habitat restoration programme for<br />

restoration.<br />

such a habitat would be minimizing and<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

regulating grazing, removal of forest produce by<br />

Good<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

local people etc.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />

No such programme has ever been undertaken<br />

Poor _<br />

adhoc.<br />

in the PA.<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair _<br />

programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Good _<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good _<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

| 126


2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

The only protection strategy is the foot patrolling<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü by frontline staff posted in far flung areas. Staff<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strength being poor this is not effective. During<br />

Good<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

winter there is hardly any strategy except<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

collection of intelligence, though important<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

species become vulnerable as they come down<br />

Very good<br />

to habitations. Due to unchecked grazing in the<br />

N.P. there is little achievement.<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor ü The conflict is due to crop raiding by herbivores,<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

pastures by snow leopard and brown bear, cattle<br />

killing of sheep and goats while on high altitude<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

lifting by leopards and mauling by black bears.<br />

Good<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Provision for compensation is only in case of<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

human kills/injuries and there is no compensation<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

for cattle killing. No other mitigatry measures are<br />

practiced.<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

The site has a great potential as well as there is<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

need for wider ecological integration with Paddar<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

range of Kistwar territorial Forest Division and<br />

Fair ü<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

some PAs in Chamba district of H.P. This site<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

can be a potential alternative for Hangul. The<br />

Good<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

recent census findings have reported presence of<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

Hangul in the N.P. Paddar Range has good<br />

landscape.<br />

population of Himalayan Tarh and the entire belt<br />

could be a good snow leopard habitat. So far no<br />

efforts have been made in this duration. The<br />

present Regional Wildlife Warden has recently<br />

Very good<br />

tracked the area adjoining H.P. and has found it<br />

one of the most virgin forest areas with great<br />

potential for conservation of threatened species.<br />

The area also supports potential populations of<br />

several galliform species.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

127 |


3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

In the Management Plan, 5 Ranges, 10 Blocks<br />

and 25 beats have proposed against which only<br />

2 Ranges, 2 Blocks and 19 beats are existing.<br />

Out of 46 forest compartments only 33 are in<br />

possession of Park management. Looking at the<br />

difficult terrain, adverse climate and high biotic<br />

pressure the staff strength is poor. Other<br />

resources such as equipment for high altitude<br />

trekking, Arms, camping equipment etc. are also<br />

poor.<br />

3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

There is no road access in the Park and vehicles<br />

are needed only by top management. Equipment<br />

for high altitude tracking and camping are<br />

inadequate and the condition of buildings and<br />

roads specially bridges over fast flowing streams<br />

is very bad and needs immediate attention.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

| 128


3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

are never released in time.<br />

Poor<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released<br />

in time.<br />

Fair<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Budget for Kistwan NP was provided by State<br />

Govt. under different heads of Plan and Non Plan<br />

budget as well as from centrally sponsored<br />

scheme of Development of National parks and<br />

Sanctuaries. Last 5 years comparison of State<br />

and CSS budget is as under:<br />

Year State Budget Allocation under % (sd)<br />

CSS<br />

2005-06 74.89 11.40 6<br />

2004-05 55.00 10.00 10<br />

2003-04 52.00 9.92 7<br />

2002-03 53.38 8.40 31<br />

2001-02 47.22 25.00 17<br />

The management effectiveness has been<br />

evaluated on the basis of total budget allotted<br />

from different sources. In the State budget bulk<br />

of allotment in non-plan is against salaries and<br />

wages of the Staff and very little for habitat<br />

improvement antipoaching and other<br />

conservation activities. The CSS budget, though<br />

less in quantity but caters for important activities<br />

related to habitat management awareness,<br />

census, infrastructure development etc. Budget<br />

is not adequate either from State or under CSS<br />

and the release by State Govt. is also not timely.<br />

The funds under CSS were mostly utilized for<br />

infrastructure development, habitat improvement,<br />

census, staff amenities, publicity etc.<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

There is no NGO support for the N.P. mostly<br />

Poor ü<br />

management of the site.<br />

due to insurgency problem.<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

Fair<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Very good<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

129 |


3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Neither human nor financial resource is<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü considered sufficient by the PA Manager.<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Director, Kistwar NP is a post graduate in<br />

Poor<br />

in the site.<br />

Wildlife Science from Aligarh University and<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

Regional Wildlife Warden is also highly qualified<br />

Fair<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

and experienced. At lower level few staff is<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

trained specifically in wildlife but their continuous<br />

Good ü<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

posting in wildlife areas is an added advantage.<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

The services of experts are utilized during<br />

Very good<br />

posted in the site.<br />

census operations.<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

Mostly protection is considered as management<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

objective. There was no management plan for a<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

long period and even the current plan is not very<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

clear in management objectives particularly for<br />

Fair ü<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

the frontline staff.<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Very good<br />

management objectives.<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

There is little public participation in PA<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

Management except in fire control, occasional<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

intelligence input and working as labourers in<br />

Fair ü<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

the activities relating to infrastructure<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

development and habitat management. In fact<br />

Good<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

due to faulty notification of the NP there is<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

resentment in the people against the N.P.<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />

management.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

| 130


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

Complaints are handled in a routine manner<br />

Poor ü<br />

complaints.<br />

and there is no responsive system in place.<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

Good<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response Very good<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

So long as the legal restrictions can be<br />

Poor ü<br />

management.<br />

imposed, no comments on livelihood issues<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

would be justified. At present there is free<br />

Fair<br />

management.<br />

excess for grazing, timber and fuel wood<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

collection, collection of NTFP etc. Some minor<br />

Good<br />

by PA management.<br />

issues like distribution of Solar energy sources<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

etc. are being addressed at small scale.<br />

communities especially women are<br />

Very good<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

Information on PA management is available in<br />

Poor<br />

publicly available.<br />

brochures, folders, census reports and<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

Management Plan.<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Fair<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good ü<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

131 |


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Due to insurgency problem there are no<br />

visitors going to the N.P. There are little visitor<br />

services developed but some informative<br />

brochures have been prepared.<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

A detailed wildlife census was carried out in<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

Kistwar N.P. and Paddar Forest Range of<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

adjoining territorial FD in March 2006 with the<br />

Fair<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

help of Mr. Hilaluddin an expert consultant. A<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

detailed report has been prepared giving<br />

Good ü<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

population trends of important species. Prior<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

to this, census of Ibex was carried out in<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

1999-2000 and detailed report was made.<br />

undertaken.<br />

Both the reports give good account of habitat<br />

Very good<br />

conditions and biotic interference and<br />

suggestions for improvement of management<br />

practices. No other evaluation has been<br />

carried out.<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

There is a schedule of infrastructures<br />

(buildings, bridges etc.) maintained. Most of<br />

the buildings and bridges are damaged and<br />

not serviceable. Efforts are being made,<br />

though slowly to restore them with the help of<br />

CSS grants. Much more funds both from<br />

State and GOI would be needed to restore<br />

the assets to a minimum utility level.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

| 132


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable. Fair<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable. Good ü<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

The only detailed census of most of the<br />

important mammal species was done in<br />

March 2006 in which minimum and<br />

maximum estimated population size for<br />

following species has been given for Kistwar<br />

N.P.<br />

Species<br />

Estimated Population<br />

Minimum<br />

Maximum<br />

Very good<br />

Musk deer 60 99<br />

Hangul 4 20<br />

Goral 527 1036<br />

Ibex 684 900<br />

Common Langur 747 2360<br />

Rhesus monkey 2884 3508<br />

Yellow throated martin 109 148<br />

Chuker Partridge 412 934<br />

Kaleej pheasant 173 341<br />

Koklas pheasant 676 947<br />

Monal pheasant 159 237<br />

Encounter rates of some other species was<br />

estimated as under:<br />

Species No. of animal seen/km<br />

tr.walk<br />

Black Bear 0.004<br />

Leopard cat 0.03<br />

Himalayan fox 0.03<br />

Jackal 0.02<br />

Western tragopan 0.004<br />

The 1999-2000 census of Ibex gave an<br />

estimated figure of 612 & the present census<br />

shows a population increase. Presence of<br />

Hangul is a new finding.<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

Due to heavy grazing pressure it is not<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

possible to assume that biological<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

communities could remain at a mix of ages<br />

Fair ü<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

and spacing that will support native<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

biodiversity. However, there are numerous<br />

Good<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

unapproachable valleys and sites where this<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

could be possible though no such survey<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

has neither been made nor it is easily<br />

possible.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

133 |


6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

The threats remain at the same critical level<br />

Poor ü<br />

have enhanced.<br />

as there are no efforts to contain them<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

except the poaching. Violation of FCA in<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

construction of Hydroelectric projects has<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

added a new dimension to the threats.<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor ü There are no visitors due to insurgency<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

problem.<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

The communities in interior areas are to<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

some extent supportive but those in the<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

outer fringes are hostile due to faulty<br />

Fair ü<br />

supportive.<br />

notification and absence of any efforts to<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

settle the rights. Imposition of FCA and ban<br />

Good<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

on road construction and other development<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

activities without any proper solution in sight<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

is another reason for hostility towards the<br />

N.P.<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Cultural heritage assets are fully protected<br />

due to remoteness of the area.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

| 134


MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 10.0<br />

2. Planning 9 10 90 42.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 25.0<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 22.5<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 22.5<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 32.5<br />

Total 32 320 155<br />

Overall Score<br />

48%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kishtwar National Park (J&K)<br />

135 |


| 136


12. Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />

Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />

137 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

The PA has a well written draft management plan<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

that spells out values of the area. Goal to reintroduce<br />

Lion, the mega predator, is a unique<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

Fair ü<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

feature. Importance of possible corridor with<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

Ranthambore.<br />

Good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

Very good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

Past history indicates law and order problems<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

(dacoits infestation threats, past ill treatment of<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

forests) unrestricted grazing of local and<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

migratory cattle from Rajasthan are under stated<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

and monitoring mechanism inadequate.<br />

Good ü<br />

assessed.<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

Very good<br />

assessed.<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

Since 1997 process of shifting villages has begun<br />

Poor<br />

interference.<br />

and till today twenty four villages have been<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

resettled. There is a comprehensive and cocoordinated<br />

relocation activity, thanks to<br />

Fair<br />

interference.<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

excellent work by PA management/ Govt.<br />

Good ü<br />

interference.<br />

Machinery.<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

Very good<br />

interference.<br />

2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Site i.e. sanctuary has been a well recognized<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

conservation area and no commercial<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

exploitation for long and now there is extensive<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

buffer around it. Very comprehensive zonation is<br />

Good ü<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

a high point of policy decision.<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />

| 138


2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

There is draft Management plan by Chaudhari for<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

period ending ’05. Area around present sanctuary<br />

Fair ü<br />

comprehensive.<br />

need be brought under the plan, may be as<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

multiple use area. Prior to sanctuary status,<br />

Good<br />

Plan.<br />

working plan by Maharshi was in place.<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />

participatory process.<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

Adequate provisions exist for revision.<br />

Poor ü<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated Very good<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

All values not documented e.g. otters, caracal,<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

desert cat etc. This is Tiger habitat but there shift<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

in emphasis to Lion. “Soft release” of lion is a<br />

Fair ü<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

major goal and will be a great achievement when<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

accomplished.<br />

Good<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

Very good<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

Eco development committees exist in all the<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

villages. There is high power committee to over<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü see rehabilitation, how ever compliance to<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

section 33B wildlife (Prot.) Act, yet be made PA<br />

Good<br />

processes.<br />

manager opines that issue of person chairing<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

committee need to be reconsidered and are<br />

participate in all planning processes. Very good<br />

resolved first at the policy level. There would be<br />

more stake holders beyond PAPs.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />

139 |


2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

Shifting of villages has contributed to eco<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

restoration in a big way and habitat recovery is<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

being monitored by competent researchers under<br />

guidance of Wildlife Institute of <strong>India</strong>, Dehradun<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

Very comprehensive plan is being persistently<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

perused and arrangement in place to monitor the<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

same. Rigid grazing control along sanctuary<br />

boundaries will be a crucial management tool.<br />

programmes are in place for<br />

Fair ü<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Park management has strategy to combat<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü threats, rehabilitation plan is in place, wire mesh<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

fencing is in progress for soft release which also<br />

Good<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

protects meadows that are developing for safe<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

guarding lions and minimization of man/ animal<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

conflicts where ecological boundaries are not<br />

secure fencing is imperative.<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Damage to human life within PA is not entitled for<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

is a key issue. Process of shifting villages which<br />

compensation domestic and or feral cattle control<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

has begun need be settled early<br />

Good ü<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />

| 140


2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosys<br />

tem approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

Geographical situation being peculiar, net<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

working within the state has limited scope ot<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

Chambal sanctuary link with Rajasthan (Sawai<br />

Fair<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Madhavpur) under consideration.<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives .<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

For total area of 1268 km 2 there is a senior level<br />

official at the helm conservation of forests<br />

assisted by one Dy. C.F, Asst C.F., R.F.O (9),<br />

Foresters (35) and Fgs/ daily wagers (150). In<br />

near future staff for Education/ interpretation,<br />

research/monitoring will have to be planned.<br />

3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

Compensation on account of land loss, is<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

inadequate and may become sensitive issue<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

other than this activity resources adequate and<br />

organized.<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />

141 |


3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

Research and monitoring need higher priority,<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

scope for improvement in release of funds.<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

Poor<br />

Poor ü<br />

management of the site.<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

Fair<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Very good<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Sufficient for few tasks.<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />

| 142


4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Few trained officers and field staff and hence<br />

Poor<br />

in the site.<br />

need impart trainings on priority.<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair ü<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

Not institutionalize but there are adequate<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

checks and balances.<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

There are number of committees for ecodevelopment<br />

collector over see’s people<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

related issue. However no statutory<br />

Fair ü<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

compliance under section 33 B, Wildlife (Prot.)<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

Act<br />

Good<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />

management.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />

143 |


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

No specific complaint redressed system,<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

however super vision of elected<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

representatives, access to press, institution of<br />

Lokayukta, Right to Information Act are<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

adequate tools.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

Having status of sanctuary from where people<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

have moved out options are limited but till<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

habitations are resettled and cushion provided<br />

Fair ü<br />

management.<br />

around PA problems will persist. Forage and<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

fodder supply is a key issue, resulting in semi<br />

Good<br />

by PA management.<br />

feral/ feral cattle.<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

Very good<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

Management/ Policy decisions without public<br />

Poor<br />

publicly available.<br />

debate, information not available in public<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

domain. Brochures, hand outs given in routine<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

way.<br />

Fair ü<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of Very good<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />

| 144


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor ü<br />

Presently there are no visitor services.<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance Good<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Very good<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

Population estimation exercise for major<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

carnivores/ herbivores under taken at regular<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

intervals by independent agency as well.<br />

Fair<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good ü<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Inventory adhoc, paucity of funds jeopardize<br />

maintenance schedules.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />

145 |


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Park management is planning reintroduction<br />

of Lions. In the absence of critical ecological<br />

status of wide range of species comments<br />

on all important species can not be<br />

generalized.<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

There is good conservation history and thus<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

good forest cover and presence of mature<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

tree crop shifting of villages will result in<br />

Fair<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

meadows and young crop.<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

Some threats are abated.<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor ü Visitor flow has not started as yet.<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />

| 146


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

Scope for improvement<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Structures like ‘Garhi’ within the core zone<br />

have excellent potentials and will have be<br />

handled with sensitivity.<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 21<br />

2. Planning 9 10 100 62<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 29<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 28<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 21<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 37<br />

Total 32 330 198<br />

Overall Score<br />

60%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (MP)<br />

147 |


| 148


13. Madhav National Park (MP)<br />

Madhav National Park (MP)<br />

149 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

The Park has a written management plan that<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

spells out values of the area. How ever, the fact<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

that, central theme of the Park, is ancient water<br />

Fair ü<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

reservoirs that supply water to the Shivpuri city<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

and there by the Park is life support system, has<br />

Good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

not been high lighted adequately. Scope to reintroduce<br />

Tiger ,the mega predator, also need be<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

Very good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

stressed.<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

Original area i.e. position till 1983,had lesser<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

threats, however, addition of area as also<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

development / up gradation of roads [NH 3 , NH<br />

Fair ü<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

27 ], Manikheda irrigation project ,legal / illegal<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

settlements adjacent to Township and area east<br />

Good<br />

assessed.<br />

central to original NP have lead to increase in<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

threats.(<strong>page</strong> 32,para 6.2) Unrestricted grazing of<br />

assessed.<br />

local and migratory cattle form Rajasthan , are<br />

Very good<br />

under stated and monitoring mechanism<br />

inadequate. Ingress of untreated town sewerage<br />

may pose danger.<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

Closeness to Shivpuri town as also two National<br />

Poor<br />

interference.<br />

high ways have made Park vulnerable.<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

Extenuation to four compt.s 129 to 132, have<br />

Fair ü<br />

interference.<br />

enhanced threats. Following recent amendment<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

to the Wild life (Protection ) Act, all the restrictive<br />

Good<br />

interference.<br />

measures are applicable to these areas and<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

alternative arrangements to meet requirements is<br />

Very good<br />

interference.<br />

mandatory.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Madhav National Park (MP)<br />

| 150


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Site has been a well recognized conservation<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

area since pre independence era as a "shikar<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

block ." Its proper place in biogeographic<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

zonation is recognized.<br />

Good ü<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

Management plan by Subharanjan Sen is in<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

place ;plan for period ending '05 has been<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive.<br />

extended by competent authority .Prior to this,<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

there were plans by Dutta (1977 - 82 ) and<br />

Good ü<br />

Plan.<br />

Sharma S.K. (1989 -94)<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />

participatory process.<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

Adequate provisions exist for revision.<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good ü<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Madhav National Park (MP)<br />

151 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

All values not documented, e. g. Crocodiles<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

,otters. This is potential Tiger habitat; in recent<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

past tiger had walked in accidentally and this had<br />

Fair ü<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

lead to creation of safari which was not in<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

consonance with provisions under the statutory<br />

Good<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

provisions. "Soft release" of tiger in sufficient<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

numbers and rigorous monitoring their of may be<br />

Very good<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

tried.<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

Eco development committees exist in 29 villages.<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

There is scope for involvement of Town council,<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü M.P.Tourism Corporations etc.<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

restoration.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

It has been noticed that there is infestation of<br />

weeds like Lantana and need for augment water<br />

resources. There is need to keep in place ,<br />

permanent vegetation monitoring plot mechanism<br />

by involving State Forest Research Institute/ local<br />

academic institutions . Area close to town in<br />

particular, needs restoration in a big way. There<br />

are signs of over grazing even within core zone<br />

and thus, closure plots are expected to be a tool<br />

for restoration in this area.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Madhav National Park (MP)<br />

| 152


2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

Accidental straying of Tiger into the Park had<br />

culminated into an 'Animal Safari' which was<br />

contrary to legal provisions and now been almost<br />

closed down.. A soft release of adequate number<br />

of tigers, and close monitoring, as a new concept,<br />

need be pursued. Re - introduction of floral<br />

components that may be missing ,need also be<br />

tried.<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Park management has str(ltegy to combat<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü threats, rehabilitation plan is in place, wire mesh<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

fencing is in progress ; how ever, PA manager is<br />

Good<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

advised to see Hon. Mumbai High Court order, in<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

context of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Borivali<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

as also learn more about this park as a case<br />

study.<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

National Park lacks effective buffer, any damage<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

compensation. Domestic and lor feral cattle<br />

to human life within park is not entitled for<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

control is a key issue. Process of shifting villages<br />

Good<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

which has begun need be settled early.<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

Geographical situation being peculiar net working<br />

Poor ü<br />

landscape.<br />

within the state has l imitations.<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Fair<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Madhav National Park (MP)<br />

153 |


3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Park with area of 375.23 km2 is headed by a<br />

senior level official, Conservator of forest, who is<br />

assisted by Dy.CF. Field staff includes<br />

sanctioned strength of 9 RFOs supported by<br />

Foresters [12], Forest guards and permanent<br />

muzdoors [48 +>100] and thus sanctioned<br />

strength isadequate but more vacancies at<br />

cutting edge. Need for focus on conservation<br />

education. Considering vulnerability , better<br />

deployment required.<br />

3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

Resources adequate and organized.<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

Research and monitoring need higher priority ,<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

scope for improvement in release of funds.<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Madhav National Park (MP)<br />

| 154


3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

Poor..<br />

Poor ü<br />

management of the site.<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

Fair<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Very good<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor ü Sufficient for few tasks.<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Few trained officers and field staff<br />

Poor ü<br />

in the site.<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Madhav National Park (MP)<br />

155 |


4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

Not institutionalize but there are adequate<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

checks and balances.<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

There are no. of committees for eco -<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

development; Collector over see's people<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

related issues. How ever, no statutory<br />

Fair ü<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

compliance under section 33 B, Wild life<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

(prot.) Act.<br />

Good<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />

management.<br />

4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

No specific complaint redressal system, how<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

ever, super vision of elected representatives,<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

access to press, institution of Lokayukta, Right<br />

to information Act are adequate tools.<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Madhav National Park (MP)<br />

| 156


4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

Having status of National Park ,options are<br />

Poor ü<br />

management.<br />

limited but till habitations are resettled and<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

cushion provided around PA, problems will<br />

Fair<br />

management.<br />

persist. Forage and fodder supply is a key<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

issue, resulting in Semi feral \ feral cattle.<br />

Good<br />

by PA management.<br />

Urban poor is going to be a serious matter.<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

Very good<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

Management /Policy decisions without public<br />

Poor<br />

publicly available.<br />

debate information not available in public<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

domain .Brochures, hand outs given in routine<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

way.<br />

Fair ü<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of Very good<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Visitor services located out side PA. MP<br />

tourism Dept runs camping facilities , there is<br />

tastefully developed interpretation centre but<br />

still leaves scope for improvement; more<br />

signage,<br />

way side exhibits required. Park's contribution<br />

in sustained water supply to town, needs<br />

more<br />

emphasis. There is decline in visitors due to<br />

closure of safari.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Madhav National Park (MP)<br />

157 |


5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

Population estimation exercise for major<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

carnivores/ herbivores under taken at regular<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

intervals but in a routine way.Increase in<br />

Fair ü<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

crocodiles should be a matter of concern as it<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

would be more predators with already<br />

Good<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

depleted wild herbivore.<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends Very good<br />

undertaken.<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Inventory ad hoc, paucity of funds jeopardize<br />

maintenance schedules<br />

6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Park management, it is learnt ,is planning<br />

reintroduction of Tigers. In the absence of<br />

critical ecological status of wide range of<br />

species, comments on all important species<br />

can not be generelarised. Park is beset with<br />

problems.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Madhav National Park (MP)<br />

| 158


6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

There is long conservation history and thus<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

good forest cover and presence of mature<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

tree crop. Shifting of villages will result in<br />

Fair<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

meadows and young crop.<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

Some threats are abated .Recommend study<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

of SGNP, Mumbai as case study on<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü abatement of threats due to urbanization.<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

As pointed out in paraSol above visitors<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü partly satisfied, there i's need to sensitize<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

and educate tourists through concerted<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

efforts<br />

6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

Scope for improvement.<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Madhav National Park (MP)<br />

159 |


6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Structures like old Baradari, Georges castle,<br />

watch towers have good potentials.<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 16<br />

2. Planning 9 10 100 62<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 26<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 26<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 22<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 33<br />

Total 32 330 185<br />

Overall Score<br />

56%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Madhav National Park (MP)<br />

| 160


14. Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

161 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

Plant and faunal resources of Mahananda WLS<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

is well documented in joint publication of<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

department and a NGO (NEWS)<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

Threats are known and but not systematically<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

documented nor regularly monitored<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

Grazing by domestic cattle and head load<br />

Poor<br />

interference.<br />

collection for N.T.F.P is there in southern fringe.<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Fair ü<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

| 162


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

The site is well demareated but zonation for<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

various activities not properly documented.<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

Management plan is there and valid, but not<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

prepared through participating process.<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

Yes, current management plan is valid and would<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

be revised on expiry. It requires some upgrading<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

also.<br />

Fair<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good ü<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

163 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

Floral resources of the sanctuary have improved<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

a lot along with some keystone animal spp.<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Fair<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good ü<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

Most of the participation of the stakeholders are<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

restricted to E.D.C works and some support to<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü protection duties.<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

Habitat restoration works are being carried out on<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

short term basis, monitoring works are also<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

limited in time frame.<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair ü<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

| 164


2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

Some introduction of Hollock gibbon was done in<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

past and bear also released but planning and<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

monitoring is sketchy<br />

programmes are in place for<br />

Fair ü<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Regular patrolling is done by staff by vehicle and<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

on foot covering both day and night<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

By erecting electric fencing and maintenances of<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

been contained significantly.<br />

mobile squad, the human-wildlife conflict has<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

The extension of the sanctuary has been done to<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

cover corridor of wild elephant and making<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

comprehensive ecosystem unit.<br />

Fair<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

165 |


3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

The staff engaged mainly to words specific<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

Whatever resources are available are managed<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

properly but require considerable augmentation.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

Some funds are released in time but there are<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

many instances of delayed release of fund while<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />

N.P.S.S. funds are regularly received other funds<br />

are adhoc allotments.<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

| 166


3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

NGO’s contribution is limited to census and<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

education and awareness mainly.<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Major past of E.D.C. works are funded from<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü F.D.A its continuation is not guaranteed.<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Only a few field staff are specially trained in<br />

Poor<br />

in the site.<br />

wildlife management. More training is required.<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair ü<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

Most of the staff work towards specific<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

management objectives.<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

167 |


4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

Public participation is limited to E.D.C works<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

and some support for protection duties.<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good<br />

4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

Public complaints are heard and dealt with to<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

the extent possible however, all complaints<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

are not entered in the registers and monitored<br />

systematically for follow up.<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

Livelihood issues are addressed mainly<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

through E.D.C’s for which considerable fund<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

come from F.D.A, but this is on adhoc basis.<br />

Fair<br />

management.<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

| 168


5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

The literatures are either scientific or general<br />

Poor<br />

publicly available.<br />

in nature and is not linked with management<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

accountability.<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Fair ü<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Visitor services are provided at two places<br />

mainly, while in Sukna it is adequate, in 7 th<br />

mile it is limited.<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

These are evaluated through regular<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

inspection of senior officers and routinely<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

reported.<br />

Fair<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good ü<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

169 |


5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Regular inventory provides basis of action but<br />

funds are inadequate to deal with them<br />

appropriately<br />

6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Elephant population is on increase. The tiger<br />

population is stable, but deer population is<br />

on decline.<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

The sanctuary has got a lot of pristine area,<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

which support a good amount of native<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

biodiversity.<br />

Fair<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

| 170


6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

Except grazing and erosion by river other<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

threats have been contained.<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Area offers a view of pristine pressured<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü vegetation in valleys to most of the urban<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

visitors and is a good recreational spot and<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

adventure tourism wildlife sighting is<br />

Very good<br />

however limited.<br />

6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

Panchayat and E.D.C members co-operate<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

with the staff of the sanctuary.<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Cultural heritages are attempted to be<br />

preserved through community centers<br />

created under eco-development and F.D.A<br />

schemes.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

171 |


MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 17.5<br />

2. Planning 9 10 100 67.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 30<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 32.5<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 25<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 37.5<br />

Total 32 330 210<br />

Overall Score<br />

64%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (West Bengal)<br />

| 172


15. Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />

Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />

173 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

Assessment and monitoring are to be done<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

regularly.<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Most threats systematically identified and Good ü<br />

assessed.<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

Ecotourism and safe passage to local fisherman<br />

Poor<br />

interference.<br />

are allowed.<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Fair<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good ü<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />

| 174


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

categorized.<br />

Fair<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

Periodicity of revision is proposed to be<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

introduced.<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Poor<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Fair<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />

175 |


2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

Fishing route and berthing place of boats is done<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

in consultation with the fishermen.<br />

Stakeholders parti cipate in some planning. Fair ü<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

N.A<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />

adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair<br />

N.A.<br />

programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Good<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />

| 176


2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

N.A.<br />

Good<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

Nearby there is Crocodile Sanctuary and Cinque<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

(Five) Island Sanctuary.<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Fair<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />

177 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

are never released in time.<br />

Poor<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

management of the site.<br />

Poor<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />

| 178


3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Insufficient human resources.<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Need for training/capacity building for Marine<br />

Poor<br />

in the site.<br />

biology/Marine biodiversity/Coastal Zone<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

Management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

Poor<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />

179 |


Assessment criteria<br />

4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA manage-<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

complaints.<br />

Poor<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively ment to most complaints. ?<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response Very good<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Fair ü<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />

| 180


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance Good ü<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Very good<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

Poor<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />

181 |


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Good ü<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Very good<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Poor<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Fair<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

have enhanced.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />

| 182


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

hostile.<br />

Poor<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

Poor<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Fair<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is Good<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Very good ü<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 22.5<br />

2. Planning 7 10 70 52.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 27.5<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 30<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 27.5<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 47.5<br />

Total 30 300 207.5<br />

Overall Score<br />

69%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A& N)<br />

183 |


| 184


16. Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

185 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically<br />

documented, assessed or monitored. Poor<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and<br />

monitored.<br />

Most Values systematically identified<br />

and assessed and monitored.<br />

All Values systematically identified<br />

and assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

1.2 Are the threats of the site well documented, assessed and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically<br />

documented, assessed.<br />

Poor<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Most threats systematically identified<br />

and assessed.<br />

All threats systematically identified<br />

and assessed.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human an biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition *Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and<br />

biotic interference.<br />

Poor ü<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

| 186


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified ( NP/WLS ) and categorized ( in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or<br />

categorized.<br />

Poor<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

categorized.<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Site identified correctly and<br />

systematically categorized with<br />

proper zonation plans.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in<br />

place.<br />

Poor<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Fair<br />

ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive<br />

Management Plan.<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science<br />

based Management Plan prepared<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place ofr systematic<br />

review and update of Management Poor<br />

Plan.<br />

Management Plan sometimes update<br />

in adhoc manner.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Management plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically<br />

Very good<br />

updated through a participatory<br />

process.<br />

*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

ü<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

187 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Poor<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for<br />

stakeholder participation in planning.<br />

Poor<br />

Stakeholder participation in some<br />

planning.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Stakeholder participation in most<br />

planning processes.<br />

Good<br />

Stakeholder routinely and<br />

systematically participation in all<br />

planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitual restoration programmers systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmers are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmers are in place for habitual Fair<br />

ü<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmers are<br />

generally well planned and<br />

Good<br />

monitored.<br />

Habitat restoration programmers are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored. Very good<br />

*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

| 188


2.7 Are reintroduction programmers systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmers are<br />

entirely adhoc. Poor ü<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmers are in place for<br />

reintroduction programmers.<br />

Reintroduction programmers are<br />

generally well planned and<br />

monitored.<br />

Reintroduction programmers are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Site has no adhoc protection<br />

strategy.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Good<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tickü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Site has been able in mitigate all<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

189 |


2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Poor<br />

Site limited attempts to integrated the<br />

site into a network/ landscape.<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organized and managed with access to a adequate resoureces?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly<br />

allocated for PA management.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management but not<br />

systematically linked to management<br />

Fair<br />

objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific Good<br />

management.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly<br />

allocated towards achievement of<br />

specific management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

| 190


3.2 Are resources ( Vehicle, equipment, building etc. ) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tickü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly<br />

allocated for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management but not<br />

systematically linked to management<br />

objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly<br />

allocated towards achievement of<br />

specific management objectives.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

3.3 Are resources ( human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and<br />

funds are never released in time.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Some specific allocation for<br />

management of priority action and Fair<br />

some funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae<br />

systematically applied to decide most<br />

resource allocation and generally<br />

Good<br />

funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae<br />

systematically applied to decide<br />

complete allocation of resources for<br />

management and on-time release of<br />

funds.<br />

Very good<br />

*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

191 |


3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

management of the site.<br />

Poor<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

management of the site but<br />

opportunities for collaboration are not<br />

systematically explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are<br />

systematically sought and negotiated<br />

for the management of many site<br />

level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are<br />

systematically sought and negotiated<br />

for the management of many site<br />

level activities.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources ( human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most<br />

tasks.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Resources insufficient for some<br />

tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

Resources insufficient for most<br />

tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most<br />

tasks.<br />

Very good<br />

*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

| 192


4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline<br />

staff in the site.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Few trained officers and frontline<br />

staff, who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair<br />

A large number of trained officers<br />

and frontline staff, who are posted in Good<br />

the site.<br />

All trained managers and frontline<br />

staff posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff<br />

performance management and<br />

Poor<br />

management objectives.<br />

Some linkage between staff<br />

performance management and<br />

management objectives, but not<br />

Fair ü<br />

consistently or systematically<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most<br />

staff is directly linked to achievement Good<br />

of relevant management objectives.<br />

Performance management all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of<br />

relevant management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

193 |


4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Opportunistic public participation in<br />

some aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic public participation in<br />

most aspects of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Comprehensive and systematic<br />

public participation in all important<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

complaints.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Complaints handling system<br />

operational but not responsive to<br />

individual issues and limited follow up<br />

Fair<br />

provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and<br />

responds effectively to most<br />

Good<br />

complaints.<br />

All complaints systematically logged<br />

in coordinated system an timely<br />

response provided with minimal<br />

repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

| 194


4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Fair<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are<br />

addressed by PA management. Good<br />

Livelihood issues of resource<br />

dependent communities especially<br />

women are addressed effectively by<br />

PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

5. Outputs<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA<br />

management publicly available.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Publicly available information is<br />

general and has limited relevance to<br />

management accountability and the<br />

Fair<br />

condition of public assets.<br />

Publicly available information<br />

provides detailed insight into major<br />

management issues for most PAs or<br />

Good<br />

groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and<br />

condition of public assets in all PAs<br />

or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

195 |


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at<br />

odds with relevant PA category<br />

Poor ü<br />

and/or threaten PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities<br />

generally accord with relevant PA<br />

category and don't threaten PA<br />

Fair<br />

values.<br />

All Visitor services and facilities<br />

accord with relevant PA category Good<br />

and most enhance PA values.<br />

All Visitor services and facilities<br />

accord with relevant PA category<br />

and enhance PA values.<br />

Very good<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or<br />

routine reporting of management Poor ü<br />

related trends.<br />

Some evaluation and reporting<br />

undertaken but neither systematic Fair<br />

nor routine.<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine<br />

reporting of management related Good<br />

trends undertaken.<br />

Systematic evaluation and<br />

comprehensive reporting of<br />

management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

| 196


5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure<br />

/ assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or<br />

maintenance schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and<br />

so is the maintenance schedule.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic inventory provides the<br />

basis for maintenance schedule but<br />

funds are inadequately made<br />

Good<br />

available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the<br />

basis for maintenance schedule and<br />

adequate funds ar e made available.<br />

Very good<br />

6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threatened/ endangered<br />

species populations increasing, most Fair ü<br />

others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered<br />

species populations increasing, most Good<br />

others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or<br />

stable.<br />

Very good<br />

*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

197 |


6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacing that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Poor<br />

Some biological communities likely to<br />

be able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most biological communities likely to<br />

be able to sustain native biodiversity. Good<br />

All biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated / minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated<br />

but have enhanced.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threats to the site have been<br />

abated.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most threats to the site have been<br />

abated.<br />

Good<br />

All threats to the site have been<br />

abated.<br />

Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not<br />

met.<br />

Poor<br />

Expectations of many visitors are<br />

met.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Expectations of most visitors are<br />

met.<br />

Good<br />

Good expectations of many visitors<br />

are met.<br />

Very good<br />

*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

| 198


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA managment?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/ adjacent communities<br />

are hostile.<br />

Poor<br />

Key neighbours/ communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair<br />

Most neighbours/ communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

All neighbours and communities<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition * Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken,<br />

of despite management efforts,<br />

deteriorating of cultural heritage Poor ü<br />

assets continues, or values are<br />

unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deteriorating continues.<br />

Fair<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deteriorating of assets Good<br />

is being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deteriorating of assets<br />

is being significantly redressed.<br />

Very good<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 12.5<br />

2. Planning 10 10 100 52.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 17.5<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 15.0<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 12.5<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 32.5<br />

Total 33 330 142.5<br />

Overall Score<br />

43%<br />

*score: Poor 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (Jharkhand)<br />

199 |


| 200


17. Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

201 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

Poor<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good ü<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

assessed.<br />

Poor<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good ü<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Poor<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Fair ü<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

| 202


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

categorized.<br />

Fair<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

Poor<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good ü<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

203 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Poor<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Fair<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

participation in planning.<br />

Poor<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />

adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair<br />

programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

| 204


2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Good<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Poor<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Fair<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

205 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good ü<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

are never released in time.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

management of the site.<br />

Poor<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

| 206


3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

in the site.<br />

Poor<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair ü<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

Poor<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

207 |


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

complaints.<br />

Poor<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good ü<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Fair<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Fair ü<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

| 208


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair ü<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance Good<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Very good<br />

5.3. Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

Poor<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good ü<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

209 |


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable. Fair<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Poor<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Fair<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

have enhanced.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor ü<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

| 210


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

hostile.<br />

Poor<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

Poor<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is Good<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Very good<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 25.0<br />

2. Planning 10 10 100 80.0<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 35.0<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 35.0<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 25.0<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 25.0<br />

Total 33 330 235<br />

Overall Score<br />

71%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Mudumalai National Park (Tamil Nadu)<br />

211 |


| 212


18. National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />

National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />

213 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

The values of the site are well documented in the<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

management plan (2000-01-2009-10) but with<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

knowledge having been acquired and more field<br />

Fair ü<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

experience gained it needs immediate updating.<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

The values are being monitored by conducting<br />

Good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

estimation exercises of endangered and<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

threatened species particularly Gangetic dolphin,<br />

Very good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Mughar, Ghariyal and different species of turtles.<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

Threats to site are well documented in the<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

management plan but with passage of time each<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

threat now needs to be assessed to direct<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

management efforts to minimize it.<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good ü<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

National Chambal WLS falls in three States of<br />

Poor ü<br />

interference.<br />

U.P., M.P. and Rajasthan and in linear in shape<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

situated on a narrow strip all along Chambal<br />

Fair<br />

interference.<br />

river. Out of total length of 600 km before it<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

merges with Yamuna at Bhareh, 180 km. stretch<br />

Good<br />

interference.<br />

falls in U.P. on one side. Together with the<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

ravines the total area of the Sanctuary is 635<br />

interference.<br />

km 2 . There are 102 villages in UP alone with<br />

human population of over 55000 and cattle<br />

population of over 38000 in two districts of Agra<br />

and Etawa and at places agricultural land<br />

reaches right up to the river bank. The biotic<br />

interference is by way of grazing, fuel wood<br />

collection, collection of sand for bonafide use and<br />

at times for commercial purposes, fishing and<br />

Very good<br />

use of river water for all purposes. There are<br />

similar pressures on the other side of river in MP<br />

and Rajasthan. Sand mining by contractors is a<br />

major problem in M.P. Since private holdings<br />

have also been included inside PA boundary<br />

hence the encroachment can also not be ruled<br />

out. In spite of all these pressures there is good<br />

presence of rare/threatened species except in<br />

some parts of Etawa district.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />

| 214


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Due to inclusion of private lands inside the<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

sanctuary boundary there is great difficulty in<br />

Fair ü<br />

categorized.<br />

categorization in terms of zones but still core,<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

buffer, tourism, ecorestoration and<br />

Good<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

ecodevelopment zones have been categorized in<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

the management plan which are difficult to<br />

Very good<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

implement.<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

The PA has a comprehensive management plan<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

for the period 2000-01 to 2009-10. This is the first<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive.<br />

management plan prepared for the P.A.<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

This is the first management plan of the PA which<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

needs up dating and systematization based on<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

recent surveys, studies and experiences gained.<br />

Fair ü<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

Good<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated Very good<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

Because of the remoteness of the site, fear of<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

outlaws living perpetually in the ravines & low<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

consumption level of local people and<br />

Fair ü<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

compatible way of life,the biodiversity values of<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

the site are still safeguarded in spite of heavy<br />

Good<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

biotic pressure.<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

Very good<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />

215 |


2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

There is little participation of Stakeholders other<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

than the only NGO 'Chambal Conservation<br />

Stakeholders parti cipate in some planning. Fair ü Foundation' and the only tourist resort at Bah is<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

the Chambal Safari lodge run by a very<br />

Good<br />

processes.<br />

committed husband-wife team of nature lovers.<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

There is constant interaction with this NGO/lodge<br />

Very good<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

on most of the planning activities.<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

There is little scope for habitat restoration<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

programmes except some soil and moisture<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair ü<br />

conservation works and plantations of grasses<br />

and fodder species in the ravines.<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />

adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for reintroduction<br />

programmes.<br />

Fair<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

ü<br />

The only reintroduction programmes being<br />

undertaken is raring of Ghariyal hatchlings at<br />

Kukrail (Lucknow) from eggs taken from Chambal<br />

river and reintroducing them back into the river<br />

after their size is considered safe from predators.<br />

This is being done for a long time now and has<br />

been very successful. The breeding success of<br />

this species was less than 1% in nature which<br />

has gone up to 80%. The population of Ghariayal<br />

in Chambal now needs to be closely monitored<br />

specially for male female ration of reintroduced<br />

animals which is said to be very disturbing in<br />

term of low breeding male populations.<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

The site can be protected by constant boat<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü patrolling and patrolling by beat guards in their<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

beats on foot. There are two motor boats<br />

Good<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

available but at least two more are required.<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

Intelligence collection is another activity that can<br />

effective protec tion strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

work here which is being done to some extent.<br />

Vigilance from watch towers is also kept.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />

| 216


2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

In some areas it has been possible due to<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

areas (Etawa) this has not been possible.<br />

constant vigil by Range staff but in some other<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

Beyond Panchnada (7 km. down stream of<br />

Good<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

conflance with Yamuna), where the boundary of<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

WLS terminates, Yamuna river is leased out for<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

fishing which creates many problems for the<br />

management and there has been a considerable<br />

decline in Mughar and Ghariyal population<br />

Very good<br />

beyond Bareh and Gangetic dolphine have<br />

almost vanished from this 7 km. stretch. Some 5<br />

km. stretch of river beyond boundary of WLS<br />

needs to be secured as buffer by declaring it an<br />

eco sensitive zone under EPA.<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

The site is integrated into a large ecological<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

network by creating Sanctuaries along Chambal<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

river in all the three states of U.P., M.P. and<br />

Fair<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Rajasthan that is how these Sanctuaries have<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

been named as National Chambal Sanctuaries of<br />

Good ü<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

each State. Unfortunately there is no effective<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

coordination among them. A Conservation<br />

landscape.<br />

Authority for all of them is urgently needed with<br />

representation for Govt. of <strong>India</strong>, WII and BNHS<br />

Very good<br />

and others apart from the CWLW and PA<br />

managers of all the 3 States as also the<br />

enthusiastic local NGO (Chambal Conservation<br />

Foundation).<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />

217 |


3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

In spite of 40% vacancies in the field staff the<br />

available personnel are well organized and<br />

managed. They have good number of arms but<br />

due to presence of dacoits in ravines, there is<br />

danger of the weapons being snatched by them.<br />

Wireless sets are not in working order. The most<br />

effective staff for patrolling are the boat men who<br />

know every nook and corner of the sanctuary but<br />

maximum vacancies are among them only. They<br />

need more motor boats for effective control.<br />

Other resources like search lights, binoculars,<br />

GPS etc. are available. The closer supervision by<br />

top management of the sanctuary is greatly<br />

lacking. Etawa Range needs more man power<br />

and efforts.<br />

3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

There are 2 Gypsy, one Bolero and 2 motor<br />

cycles, 66 fire arms, 2 GPS, one camera, 4 motor<br />

boats (3 engines), 7 fiber boats, one monoscope,<br />

one binocular, one search light and 14 wireless<br />

sets but out of them wireless sets are out of<br />

order, few boats are old and need replacement,<br />

more motor boats and motor cycles are needed<br />

and fire arms can't be used due to law and order<br />

problem. Buildings are old and need repairs.<br />

Four wheelers need more frequent field<br />

deployment.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />

| 218


3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

Financial allocations for last 5 years under State<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

budget and CSS (Development of NP & WLS)<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

has been as under :<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair ü Year State W.B.<br />

CSS (GOI)<br />

in time.<br />

budget Forestry<br />

Project Sd. Utilized<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

2001-02 81.99 36.86 13.55 8.90<br />

2002-03 80.40 48.85 9.00 9.00<br />

2003-04 95.17 0.10 18.05 14.05<br />

2004-05 94.91 - 25.90 20.66<br />

2005-06 98.13 - 26.20 26.20<br />

Bulk of State budget is for salaries and<br />

allowances. The share of centrally sponsored<br />

scheme though small is important for habitat<br />

improvement and protection but the scale is too<br />

small. Less expenditure in most years is due to<br />

late release by State Govt. Human resource is<br />

40% deficient as per sanctioned strength. The<br />

deficiency is mostly in vital frontline staff.<br />

For 2006-07, 41 lakh has been sanctioned under<br />

CSS and 29 lakh has so far been released.<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

management of the site.<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Chambal Conservation Foundation a local NGO<br />

is the only one which supports the management<br />

by providing its boats, manpower etc. at time of<br />

urgency. They also provide intelligence in many<br />

cases. There is no other support from any other<br />

NGO.<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor ü Neither the human nor the financial resource is<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

sufficient looking at the level of problems and<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

threats.<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />

219 |


4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

The training in wildlife management is poor at all<br />

Poor<br />

in the site.<br />

levels. Forest Guards have got their training in<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

the traditional forestry subjects. WLW has<br />

Fair ü<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

experience of working in Corbett TR.<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

Most of staff performance management is<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

manpower objectives.<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

There is hardly any public participation in PA<br />

Poor ü<br />

management.<br />

management except sometimes giving<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

intelligence and helping staff in emergencies.<br />

Fair<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Involvement of local NGO (CCF) in<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

management is positive and satisfactory.<br />

Good<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />

management.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />

| 220


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

Complaints are routinely handled and there is<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

neither follow-up nor responsiveness.<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

Except that the existing rights mentioned in<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

the Management Plan are allowed with<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

restrictions and local people are engaged as<br />

Fair ü<br />

management.<br />

labourers in the departmental works no other<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

livelihood issues are addressed.<br />

Good<br />

by PA management.<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

Very good<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

Other than the information given in the<br />

Poor<br />

publicly available.<br />

management plan, the information made<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

available to people is though the well<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

prepared brochure. The only local NGO (CCF)<br />

Fair ü<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

is also helping in dissemination of information.<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of Very good<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />

221 |


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

There are few visitors due to law and order<br />

problem. The only resort Chambal Safari<br />

Lodge at Bah gets some quality foreign<br />

visitors specially bird watchers who has good<br />

guides and provides quality visitor services to<br />

the tourists.<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

Except the routine monthly progress reports<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

and occasional census trends no other<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

management related trends are evaluated.<br />

Fair ü<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

The present evaluation of Management<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

Effectiveness will be first of its kind to be done<br />

Good<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

by Govt. of <strong>India</strong> on IUCN guidelines.<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends Very good<br />

undertaken.<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

Very little funds are available for maintenance<br />

of infrastructure/assets. The maintenance<br />

schedule is prescribed in account rules of the<br />

State. It is only out of assistance provided by<br />

Govt. of <strong>India</strong> that minimum possible<br />

maintenance is done.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />

| 222


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The population of Ghariyal, Mughar and<br />

Gangetic dolphin has substantially increased<br />

after creation of PA. In certain stretches after<br />

confluence of Chambal with Yamuna<br />

populations have gone down due to mining<br />

and fishing outside sanctuary. The<br />

population of 8 species of turtle, found here<br />

has also gone up. The number of migratory<br />

birds is also increasing season after season.<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

The Sanctuary has been created for giving<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

protection mainly to aquatic animals found in<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

Chambal such as Ghariyal, Mughar,<br />

Fair<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Gangetic Dolphin, different species of turtles<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

and fishes, otters and avifauna. Though the<br />

Good ü<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

mix of age classes is satisfactory but there is<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

a field observation that in Ghariyals breeding<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

male population is too low due to<br />

Very good<br />

reintroduction of artificially bred hatchlings.<br />

This needs to be confirmed by a research<br />

project.<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

Threats have considerably been minimized<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

but due to continuing threats from other bank<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

of Chambal in M.P. the threat level remains<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü high.<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Few visitors go to this Sanctuary due to law<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

and order problem but those who visit get full<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü satisfaction.<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />

223 |


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

There is no antagonism as such and due to<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

simple life style of villagers and their low<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

consumption level the damage is minimum<br />

Fair ü<br />

supportive.<br />

compared to the number of villages. This<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

can at the best be termed as passive<br />

Good<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

support but there is hardly any active<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

support from neighbouring communities.<br />

Very good<br />

of PA management.<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Chambal river, its clean water, the ravines<br />

and the age old villages and their down to<br />

earth tradition are the real heritage assets<br />

which will remain protected so long as the<br />

modern development concept is not thrust<br />

upon them.<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 15.0<br />

2. Planning 10 10 90 57.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 25.0<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 25.0<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 20.0<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 30.0<br />

Total 33 320 172.5<br />

Overall Score<br />

54%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

National Chambal Wildlife Sanctuary (UP)<br />

| 224


19. Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

225 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

Park encompasses semi moist deciduous forest<br />

Poor ü<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

and is representative of transient bio geographic<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

zonation (Teak and Sal forests / Gray and Red<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Jungle fowl /Clawless otters ) Important values of<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

the area need be studied and documented. Close<br />

Good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

to park there is old water body which supports<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

aquatic fauna is a major tourist attraction to an<br />

Very good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

average person.<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

Park does not have buffer , includes one large<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

and three small villages inside. Naxal activity<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

present and hence law and order problem.<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Threats perceived and documented<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good ü<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

As indicated above, fringe areas prone to<br />

Poor<br />

interference.<br />

pressures ; Core area is comparatively free.<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

Conservation since 1975, has given good<br />

Fair<br />

interference.<br />

protection and section of locals have turned<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

dedicated conservationist.<br />

Good ü<br />

interference.<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

Very good<br />

interference.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

| 226


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

A rethinking on Extent of Park and zonaton is<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

called for ; need to create buffer zone through<br />

Fair ü<br />

categorized.<br />

conservation community reserves . Govt lands<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

within Itia doh reservoir are located strategically,<br />

Good<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

to serve as a corridor at the landscape level to<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

provide link through Rajoli / Chich garh into<br />

Very good<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Gadhchiroli forests.<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

Properly written and duly approved plan exists .<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

Process of up gradation to commence without<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

waiting for completion of present plan period ;<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

there is provision for updating.<br />

Fair<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good ü<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

227 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

Potentially rich habitats of number of key<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

elements are out side PA i.e. Sarus crane and<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

otters , Vultures , heronries etc. Large number of<br />

Fair<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

floral / faunal elements of relevance are<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

being protected but not documented. Partnership<br />

Good ü<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

with Academic Institutions in vicinity<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

recommended.<br />

Very good<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

Though there were no provisions earlier ,new<br />

Poor ü<br />

participation in planning.<br />

amendments provide scope for consultations.<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

CWLW to ensure better participation of local<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

stake holders.<br />

Good<br />

processes.<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

Very good<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

Water shortage considered as a limiting factor<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

and suitable measures taken<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

| 228


2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

There is no need for at this stage and hence not<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

relevant.<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for<br />

Fair ü<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Site has good strategy.<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Good<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Site has few human wild life conflicts.<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

Not integrated into wider net work ; urgent need<br />

Poor ü<br />

landscape.<br />

for efforts in this direction.<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Fair<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

229 |


3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

Dy .Conservator, assisted by Asst .Conservator<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

and field staff of thirty persons for 133 km2 is in<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

conformity with staff norms but additional staff for<br />

monitoring , out reach , extension / education is<br />

to management objectives.<br />

recommended.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly alloc ated<br />

Resources are limited but are organized and are<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

managed effectively. As against the expected<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />

funds under plan out lays , actual receipts to the<br />

tune of 30 to 50 % during last three financial<br />

to management objectives.<br />

years.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of s pecific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

Release of Central assistance not in time for<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

optimal utilization ; no provisions for essential<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />

items like vaccination ,crime detection training ,<br />

secret fund ,boundary demarcation<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

| 230


3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

Local community helps in protection and take<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

part in population estimation exercises.<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor ü Inadequacy in the sphere of protection ,<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

research, monitoring , Education.<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Non of the staff has under gone any regular wild<br />

Poor ü<br />

in the site.<br />

life training.<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

231 |


4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

Present system has no such arrangement but<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

there are checks and balances.<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

Limited participation but lot of scope in the<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

field of monitoring , research.<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good<br />

4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

System of Lokayukta ,access to press, close<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

supervision by elected representatives and<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />

now right to information act are adequate for<br />

redressal of complaints.<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

| 232


4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

FDAs are in place in adjoining areas. There<br />

Poor ü<br />

management.<br />

scope for greater Eco development activities.<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Fair<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

Very good<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

assets.<br />

Fair<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

Important information like Management plan is<br />

not made available as a matter of routine,<br />

release of funds and its utilization is also not<br />

published. Broachers or posters or handouts<br />

given as apart of extension material normally<br />

dose not give management related<br />

information.<br />

5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Visitor services like camp site, forest rest<br />

houses are located out side the National park,<br />

is a positive point. Provision of local guides<br />

has started recently and is a step in right<br />

direction. There is scope to promote eco<br />

tourism involving villagers on the Park fringe<br />

,converting existing garden, into MPCA with<br />

involvement MPCA committee Nagzira , into “<br />

Ex situ Plant conservation centre ”.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

233 |


5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

Management trends like forest cover,<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

population estimates of some key species etc.<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

being reported but these are inadequate.<br />

Fair ü<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

Good<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends Very good<br />

undertaken.<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

Inventory maintenance is ‘ad hoc ‘<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Only major faunal species are monitored ,no<br />

focus on plants ,lower vertebrates ; only<br />

fringe area under pubic gaze. There are<br />

interesting ,birds like Sarus crane , vultures<br />

and other aquatic birds ,animals like otters<br />

that need be seen regularly.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

| 234


6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

Most biological communities will be<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

sustained.<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Fair<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

As seen form records threats still exist<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

;relocation processes have well begun and<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

need be expedited. Actual relocation<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü responsibility of relocation be vested in<br />

All threats to the site have been abated.<br />

Revenue commissioner / Territorial Dy.<br />

Very good<br />

Conservator.<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

PA being a National Park, and there being<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

no buffer zone ,there no scope for sharing<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

resources. How ever , there many<br />

Fair<br />

supportive.<br />

conservation oriented persons / N.G.O. s<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

who are providing support; there is scope to<br />

Good ü<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

institutionalize their good will.<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

Very good<br />

of PA management.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

235 |


6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

Poor<br />

No reports of heritage sites within the PA.<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Fair<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is Good ü<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Very good<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 20<br />

2. Planning 9 10 100 56<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 28<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 23<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 20<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 36<br />

Total 32 320 183<br />

Overall Score<br />

57%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Navegaon National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

| 236


20. Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />

Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />

237 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

*The values of the site is documented<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

The threats are being documented to a large<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

extend<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good ü<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

The site has got biotic interference, but has<br />

Poor<br />

interference.<br />

reduced<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Fair<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good ü<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />

| 238


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

1. The zonation has been done, in terms of Core<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

Zone and buffer zone.<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

2. A map in this regard is available<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

1. Management Plan is available<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

2. The current Management plan 2006-07 to<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive.<br />

2010-11. There is no indication that the MP has<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

been passed by the Government<br />

Good<br />

Plan.<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

The Mp is routinely and systematically updated.<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />

239 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

There are a large number of species which are<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

threatened. All the species cannot be safe<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

guarded. This approach has yet to come<br />

Fair<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good ü<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

Process has been initiated to form JFMC and<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

FDAs.<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü Hence full official participation is yet to be started.<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

This has been done very systematically and<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

successfully. It is a continuous process<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />

| 240


2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

There is no plan for reintroduction programme<br />

Poor ü<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

yet.<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for<br />

Fair<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

They have a strategy, which has been working<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

well, the establishment of the village protection<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

squad.<br />

Good<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

The measures are taken, but not in all cases.<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />

241 |


2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

1. The sanctuary has been carved out of the<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

existing reserve forest, hence the natural and<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

geomorphologic setting are contiguous.<br />

Fair<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

2. The sanctuary and the surrounding ecological<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

set-up has been covered by declaring the whole<br />

Good<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

area as project elephant site<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

Very good ü<br />

landscape.<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

Personnel are well organized<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

The infra-structural resources are well organized.<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

Broadly they are being utilized for achieving<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

specific Management objectives.<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives .<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />

| 242


3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

Finances are linked with priority action.<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good ü<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

There are few cases of good NGO support.<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good ü<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />

243 |


4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

in the site.<br />

Poor<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair ü<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

There is a linkage, but not always this happens<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

<strong>Full</strong> public participation is yet to be<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

materialized.<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />

| 244


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

There is a mechanism of addressing public<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

complain.<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

A number of program is associated with the<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

livelihood of he people.<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Fair<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

A web-site is being generated. There is no<br />

Poor<br />

publicly available.<br />

good mechanism of the dissipation of the PA<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

information to the public.<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Fair<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good ü<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />

245 |


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Process of establishment of the facilities for<br />

tourism has been initiated now.<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

The discussion on the Management related<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

trends are done regularly.<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good ü<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />

| 246


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

As per the record the elephant population<br />

has gone done from 429 in 2002 to 383 in<br />

2005.<br />

There is no systematic records of other<br />

threatened species. A report (2002) of the<br />

Tiger population of Meghayala is available.<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

The records showed, the age structure of<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

elephant, which seems will not jeopardize<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

the native biodiversity.<br />

Fair ü<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

Is being minimized to a great extend.<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Initiative has now been taken<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />

247 |


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

There is good support form the neighbour<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Though the cultural components are well<br />

identified and documented. But the cultural<br />

factors in the area are being well recognized<br />

and respected.<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 22.5<br />

2. Planning 9 10 90 82.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 35<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 32.5<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 27.5<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 37.5<br />

Total 32 320 237.5<br />

Overall Score<br />

72%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Nongkhyllem National Park (Meghalaya)<br />

| 248


21. Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />

Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />

249 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

Poor<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

The sanctuary has three different main accesses<br />

Poor ü<br />

assessed.<br />

because of its location at the tri-junction of three<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

districts. It is spread in four Forest Divisions. The<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

area also has started getting the pressure of<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

extremist movements.<br />

Good<br />

assessed.<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

Very good<br />

assessed.<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Poor<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Fair ü<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />

| 250


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

categorized.<br />

Fair<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

Poor<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />

251 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Poor<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

participation in planning.<br />

Poor<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair ü<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />

Not applicable.<br />

Poor<br />

adhoc.<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair<br />

programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />

| 252


2.8 Does the site have an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Good<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Poor<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organized and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

As against sanctioned strength of 24 staff ( RFO<br />

Poor ü<br />

for PA management.<br />

and below) only six are in position for the PA<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

area of 591 sq km. There is only one RFO for the<br />

entire area.<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />

253 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organized and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

One old jeep and one or two old buildings<br />

specially allocated. The terrain is difficult. River is<br />

the main access. One will have to come from<br />

three different directions which may take 4-5<br />

days to get a good feel of the sanctuary. Under<br />

such situations more resources are needed for<br />

effective protection<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

Very poor funding support and delays in release<br />

Poor ü<br />

are never released in time.<br />

of funds. This has been discussed in the<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

covering report.<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

Very good<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

management of the site.<br />

Poor<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />

| 254


3.5 Does PA manager consider resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Very few staff [6 in all] hardly any staff mrmbers<br />

Poor ü<br />

in the site.<br />

live within the PA. Subsistence and livelihood<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

removals specially of bamboo was noticed.<br />

Fair<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

Poor<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />

255 |


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

complaints.<br />

Poor<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Fair ü<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all Pas or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />

| 256


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor ü<br />

Hardly any visitor facility exists.<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance Good<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Very good<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

Poor<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />

257 |


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Good<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Very good<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacing that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Poor<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

have enhanced.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor ü There is neither sighing of animals nor<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

appropriate facilities forland / river based<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

nature tourism.<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />

| 258


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

hostile.<br />

Poor<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

Poor<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is Good<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Very good<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 12.5<br />

2. Planning 9 10 90 47.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 17.5<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 25<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 17.5<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 27.5<br />

Total 32 320 147.5<br />

Overall Score<br />

46%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (Andhra Pradesh)<br />

259 |


| 260


22. Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

261 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

The value has been identified and recorded.<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

All the threats are well documented and<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

assessed.<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good ü<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

Biotic interference in the form of high cattle<br />

Poor ü<br />

interference.<br />

population is a serious issue. Human interference<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

in the form of trespassing and fishing exists.<br />

Fair<br />

interference.<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

| 262


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Site properly identified, but not properly<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

Identified.<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

Comprehensive management plan exists<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

It is done regularly.<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

263 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

It does successfully safe guard the interest of<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

threatened biodiversity.<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Fair<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

Stake holders take part in the planning process<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good ü<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

Habitat restoration programme is done, as and<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

when required.<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair ü<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

| 264


2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

Reintroduction of the rhino in Manas NP is in the<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

process. The Rhino of Pobitora is suppose to be<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

taken for the purpose<br />

programmes are in place for<br />

Fair<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

It has a very good protection strategy. Rhino<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

travel to outside the PA, hence protection has to<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

be given around 200 sq km area, by the staff<br />

Good<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

meant for 38 sq km.<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Mitigation measure is by and large effective.<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

All affords are being taken to integrated the<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

relevant areas into an ecological continuity area<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Fair<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

265 |


3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

It is done in a very organized manner<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good ü<br />

3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

This has done systematically and well organized<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

Resources are linked to priority action. There is a<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

draw back in the timing in the release of fund<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good ü<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

| 266


3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

NGO supports substantially.<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

The resource can be sufficient, as the expansion<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü of the area if the site and increase of the<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

population of the threatened species.<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Some trained man power is available.<br />

Poor<br />

in the site.<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good ü<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

Yes, very sucessfully<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

267 |


4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

Some public participation in management is<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

partially directly and more indirectly.<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good<br />

4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

Yes, with partial arrangement<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

They partially addresses the livelihood issue<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

of the fringe villagers.<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

| 268


5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Fair<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good ü<br />

5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

All facilities are not available, requires much<br />

more, being close to capital city Guwahati.<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

Poor<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

269 |


5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable. Very good ü<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

Good management in this respect. Native<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

biodiversity is supported.<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Fair<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

| 270


6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

Cattle grazing is yet to be stopped.<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

By and large expectation met<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

Support is good<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

It is protected<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

Poor<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Fair<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is Good ü<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

271 |


MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 20<br />

2. Planning 9 10 100 82.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 32.5<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 37.5<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 32.5<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 45<br />

Total 32 330 250<br />

Overall Score<br />

76%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam)<br />

| 272


23. Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

273 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

Management plan of the Park ,Chapter 1 Section<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

2, high lights Biological ,Ecological, Archeological<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

as also recreational /cultural values .How ever,<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

there is scope to enlarge the same so as to<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

include lower plant forms, non vertebrates / lower<br />

Good ü<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

faunal elements.<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

Very good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

Section 16, Chapter III, <strong>page</strong> 27to 33 deals with<br />

Poor<br />

asses sed.<br />

varied aspects, giving detail account. in response<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

to PIL , Hon High court, Mumbai Bench has given<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

directives in 1997 to the State Govt. to take<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

appropriate time bound action.<br />

Good ü<br />

assessed.<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

Very good<br />

assessed.<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

Following the Hon High court Mumbai's directives<br />

Poor<br />

interference.<br />

in May 1997, human threats to the site has been<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

curbed effectively and many site has been freed<br />

Fair ü<br />

interference.<br />

from most of the disturbances.However, enclaves<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

of Yeur, Chena etc. within NP, will continue to be<br />

Good<br />

interference.<br />

foci of disturbance.Control on pilgrims to<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

Kanhneri caves is must.<br />

Very good<br />

interference.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

| 274


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

This National Park is unique, being located in a<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

mega police and is surrounded by concrete<br />

Fair ü<br />

categorized.<br />

jungle. Keeping in view this unique position<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

zonation provided in the plan is appropriate.<br />

Good<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Formation of Tungareshwar sanctuary ,in<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

northern region has given desired buffer zone.<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

The south - western portion continues to be<br />

vulnerable but regular wall, when completed, will<br />

minimize people-park conflicts. Reserve forests<br />

along boundary of Nagala block need be bought<br />

Very good<br />

under administrative control of Park manager.<br />

Multiple use zone out side PA i.e. Krishna giri<br />

Upwan is useful. Similar arrangements along the<br />

eastern region need be developed to<br />

accommodate potential eco tourism from Thana<br />

side<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

There is a comprehensive plan<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

Plan has been written in conformity of guide lines<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

and has been duly approved by competent<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

authority. There is provision for revision.<br />

Fair<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good ü<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

275 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

Comprehensive information on threatened<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

species yet to be completed, how ever, present<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

safe guards are adequate.<br />

Fair<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good ü<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

During plan drafting phase, involvement of stake<br />

Poor ü<br />

participation in planning.<br />

holders, was not provided for in the system. More<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

over, location of park within mega city, makes<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

identification of "resource dependent" stake<br />

Good<br />

processes.<br />

holders and satisfaction of their needs is difficult.<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

Very good<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

Management plan covers this issue adequately<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

and in addition, habitat restoration after removal<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

of encroachments, has been provided for and<br />

tackled effectively. Soil and moisture<br />

restoration.<br />

conservation and grassland management plan<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

has been provided [ Table 31, 32 ] but funds not<br />

Good ü<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

available accordingly.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

Some of key elements expected in this bio<br />

Poor ü<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

geographic zone , need be re introduced ,Le<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

Rusty spotted cat, Otters. Presently there no<br />

planned approach.<br />

programmes are in place for<br />

Fair<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

| 276


2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

:park management has excellent strategy to<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

protect and has given gOOQ results during<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

recent past.<br />

Good ü<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Area prone to high level of conflicts but effective<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

geographic film"Leopards of Bolly wood'}<br />

mitigation measures in place. {National<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

Park located partly on Island and partly on main<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

land; except for northern portion, it is surrounded<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

by Urban sprawl thus limiting scope. With<br />

Fair<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

form~tion of Tungareshwar sanctuary link with<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

Tansa sanctuary safe guarded .<br />

Good ü<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

Very good<br />

landscape.<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Comparatively small area ( 103.78 km2 ) is under<br />

direct control of a senior level officer assisted by<br />

over 200 staff ( section 30 of plan )Primary<br />

concern , how ever ,is multiple use area and<br />

tourism related issues. Personnel need be<br />

assigned for monitoring and research activities in<br />

the National Park area.<br />

Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

277 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

Compared to other areas in the state this Park<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

has better resources.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

There is scope for improvement in adequate and<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

timely release of funds.<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

During recent past there has been considerable<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

participation of N.G.o. in Eco restoration, Soil<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

and moisture conservation ,Interpretation and<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

education activities.<br />

Fair<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good ü<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

| 278


3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

As compared to need, actual releases<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü inadequate.<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Scope to deploy suitable trained staff for varied<br />

Poor ü<br />

in the site.<br />

jobs like zoo management , Nature<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

interpretation and education in the multiple use<br />

Fair<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

zone ; Coordination with and active support at<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

institutional level to N.G.O.s like B.N.I-l.S .is<br />

Good<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

recommended to bridge gap in the sphere of<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

monitoring and research.<br />

Very good<br />

posted in the site.<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

Performance link with management objectives<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

has not been institutionalized but there are<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

checks and balances in the existing system.<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

In recent past, Park management has<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

mobilized public support for the cause of<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

conservation through tree planting in lands<br />

Fair<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

freed from encroachments ,water harvesting,<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

interpretation and education (British Gas /<br />

Good ü<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

BNHS initiative )<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />

management.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

279 |


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

As indicated vide para 4 . 5 of state level<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

evaluation.<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

Because of Urban back ground , issue is not<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

directly relevant.<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

This area is in lime light due to its locatioh ,<br />

Poor<br />

publicly available.<br />

there is good out reach activity but scope to<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

improve in giving out information on key<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

management issues.<br />

Fair ü<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of Very good<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

| 280


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Two interpretation centers and Tiger<br />

Orientation center next to Tiger safari meets<br />

requirements to some extent; BNHS center<br />

also plays complimentary role. Additional<br />

facilities near Kanhen caves recommended.<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

Population of major carnivores and herbivores<br />

Poor ü<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

is monit9red at periodic intervals and there is<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

non other system in place .FSI forest cover<br />

Fair<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

mapping is useful tool<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

Good<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends Very good<br />

undertaken.<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

Inventory maintenance is 'ad hoc'<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

281 |


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

As indicated in 5.3 above , only major flag<br />

ship species are monitored. Population of<br />

Leopards has reached optimal capacity.<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

Natural mix within the Park area is close to<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

desired mix of age and spacing.<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Fair<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

Most threats to site are abated.<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Good expectations of many of the visitors<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

are met.<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

| 282


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

Illegal settlements have been and will be<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

threat to the Park .High rise building which<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

house non forest resource dependent<br />

Fair<br />

supportive.<br />

population need be involved to gain their<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

support.<br />

Good ü<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

Very good<br />

of PA management.<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Geographically Kanheri caves are<br />

surrounded by Park and thus it assists<br />

conservation of our rich cultural heritage.<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 22<br />

2. Planning 9 10 100 72<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 35<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 31<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 23<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 44<br />

Total 32 330 227<br />

Overall Score<br />

69%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Maharashtra)<br />

283 |


| 284


24. Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

285 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

Poor<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

assessed.<br />

Poor<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good ü<br />

1.3 Has the settlement process under sections 19-26A of the WPA been Completed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neither the notification u/s 18 or 35 issued nor<br />

the settlement process u/s 19-26-A or 66(3)<br />

completed and the site is treated as deemed<br />

PA.<br />

The notification u/s 18/35 issued or deemed to<br />

have been issued but the settlement process<br />

u/s 19-26 or 66(3) not completed.<br />

Preliminary notification u/s 18/35 issued or<br />

deemed to have been issued, the settlement<br />

process completed but the final notification u/s<br />

26-A or 35 as the case may be not issued.<br />

The final notification u/s 26-A or 35(4) issued or<br />

deemed to have been issued after<br />

extinguishment of all rights over the area<br />

constituting the PA<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

This is a new question which has been added<br />

in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

| 286


1.4 Is there any human settlement within the PA?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human settlement with<br />

increasing human and cattle population<br />

causing deterioration to biodiversity.<br />

The site has a stable human and cattle<br />

population.<br />

The site has human settlement within the PA<br />

but the same are under the process of<br />

relocation outside the PA.<br />

The site has no human and cattle settlement<br />

within the PA.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

1.5(1.3) Is the site free from outside human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

ü<br />

This is a new question which has been added<br />

in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

This question was 1.3 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />

Poor<br />

interference from outside the PA.<br />

revised format.<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interference from outside the PA.<br />

Fair ü<br />

The site has little human and biotic interference<br />

from outside the PA.<br />

Good<br />

The site has no human and biotic interference<br />

from outside the PA.<br />

Very good<br />

2. Planning<br />

2.1 Has the external boundary of the site (NP/WLS) been precisely described and notified?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Boundary of the site not described precisely. Poor ü This is a new question which has been added<br />

Boundary not described but the extant of PA<br />

described with help of plot numbers of the Fair<br />

in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />

village cadastral map.<br />

Boundary described with help of prismatic<br />

compass bearings and inter pillar distances.<br />

Good<br />

Boundary described by latitude and longitude<br />

of points of deviations of the boundary.<br />

Very good<br />

2.2 Has the Boundary of the PA been properly demarcated on the ground?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Boundary of the site not demarcated precisely<br />

This is a new question which has been added<br />

Poor ü<br />

and distinctly on the ground.<br />

in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />

Boundary of the site demarcated with help of<br />

temporary pillars/mounds.<br />

Fair<br />

Boundary of the site demarcated with help of<br />

permanent pillars.<br />

Good<br />

The entire boundary of the site fenced<br />

permanently.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

287 |


2.3 Has the boundary of the site (NP/WLS) been rationalised?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Boundary of the site not rationalized and there<br />

exists enclave(/s) of private properties within<br />

the site.<br />

Boundary of the site not rationalized and there<br />

exists enclave(/s) of private properties crisscrossing<br />

the periphery of the site.<br />

Boundary of the site though rationalised, there<br />

are stretches of habitat contiguous to but out<br />

side the PA.<br />

The entire boundary of the site is fully<br />

rationalised.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

This is a new question which has been added<br />

in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />

2.4(2.2) Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place.<br />

Poor<br />

Management Plan exist but not comprehensive<br />

and does not divide the PA into different<br />

Zones.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management Plan<br />

including identification of the zones on the<br />

ground.<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

This question was 2.2 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />

revised format.<br />

2.5 Has the Management Plan been approved by the competent authorities?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The Management Plan not approved by any<br />

This is a new question which has been added<br />

Poor ü<br />

authority.<br />

in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />

The Management Plan has been reviewed and<br />

Fair<br />

approved by the CWLW.<br />

The Management Plan has been approved by<br />

the State Govt. on recommendation of the Good<br />

CWLW.<br />

The management Plan has been sanctioned by<br />

the state Govt. after its due review by the Very good<br />

CWLW and the WII / outside agency.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

| 288


2.6 Is there any control mechanism in place to monitor the implementations of the prescriptions<br />

of Management Plan ?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

1. Nether any mechanism in place nor any<br />

This is a new question which has been added<br />

Poor ü<br />

prescribed by the Management Plan.<br />

in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />

2. The Plan prescribes maintenance of<br />

controlled form and approval of Deviation Fair<br />

statement, but no mechanism to monitor.<br />

3. The Plan prescribes maintenance of control<br />

form and deviation statement and control<br />

Good<br />

mechanism is also in place, but not<br />

implemented.<br />

The Plan prescribes maintenance of control<br />

form and deviation statement and control<br />

Very good<br />

mechanism is also in place and the4 same<br />

being implemented..<br />

2.7(2.3) Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review and<br />

This question was 2.3 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />

Poor<br />

update of Management Plan.<br />

revised format.<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in adhoc<br />

manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and systematically<br />

updated.<br />

Good ü<br />

Management Plan routinely, systematically and<br />

scientifically updated through a participatory<br />

process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.8(2.4) Does the site safeguard the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

This question was 2.4 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

revised format.<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened biodiversity<br />

values.<br />

Fair<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Good ü<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened biodiversity<br />

values.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

289 |


2.9(2.5) Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

This question was 2.5 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

revised format.<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.10(2.6) Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are entirely adhoc.<br />

revised format.<br />

This question was 2.6 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />

Poor ü<br />

Limited planning and monitoring programmes<br />

are in place for habitat restoration.<br />

Fair<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.11(2.7) Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely adhoc. Poor<br />

This question was 2.7 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />

Limited planning and monitoring programmes<br />

revised format.<br />

Fair<br />

are in place for reintroduction programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally well<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.12(2.8) Does the site have an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

This question was 2.8 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy.<br />

Fair<br />

revised format.<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection strategy<br />

but is not very effective.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very effective<br />

protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

| 290


2.13(2.9) Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant.<br />

Poor<br />

This question was 2.9 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

revised format.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

Good<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating all<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.14 Is the site properly identified (NP /WLS) and categorized (in terms of Zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Site identified correctly but not categorized. Fair<br />

Site identified correctly but not systematically<br />

categorized.<br />

Good<br />

Site identified correctly systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good<br />

2.15 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network /<br />

This does not appear to be appropriate at site<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

level and may be taken to state level<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site into<br />

assessment.<br />

Fair<br />

a network / landscape.<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network / landscape<br />

Good<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network /<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

291 |


3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed according to the specific objectives of management?<br />

Are the personnel well organized and managed with access adequate recourses ?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Personnel Resources allotted in adhoc manner<br />

without any idea of requirement or availability<br />

thereof.<br />

No exercise carried out to fix optimum<br />

requirement of personnel resources required<br />

for the specific management objectives of the<br />

PA and personnel resources allotted as per<br />

availability.<br />

Optimum requirement of resources worked out<br />

as per specific management objectives but<br />

allotment made as per availability.<br />

Optimum requirement of resources worked out<br />

as per specific management objectives and<br />

adequate allotment made accordingly.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The portion struck off is the one as it existed in<br />

Dr. Mathur’s revised format. Since the<br />

subsequent points i.e. 3.2 & 3.3 talk about<br />

other recourses, there appears no necessity for<br />

lumping up other resources with personnel<br />

resources.<br />

3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources allotted in adhoc manner without<br />

any idea of requirement or availability thereof.<br />

Poor<br />

No exercise carried out to fix optimum<br />

requirement of resources required for the<br />

specific management objectives of the PA and<br />

Fair<br />

resources allotted as per availability.<br />

No exercise carried out to fix optimum<br />

requirement of resources required for the<br />

specific management objectives of the PA and<br />

Good ü<br />

resources allotted as per availability.<br />

Optimum requirement of resources worked out<br />

as per specific management objectives and<br />

adequate allotment made accordingly.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

| 292


3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked with to priority actions prescription of Management<br />

Plan and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds are<br />

never released in time.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Some specific allocation for management of<br />

priority action and some funds released in time.<br />

Fair<br />

Prescriptions of Management Plan<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation and<br />

Good<br />

generally funds released in time.<br />

Prescriptions of Management Plan<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time release<br />

of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the management<br />

of the site.<br />

Poor ü<br />

NGOs make some contribution to management<br />

of the site but opportunities for collaboration Fair<br />

are not systematically explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically sought<br />

and negotiated for the management of some Good<br />

site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically sought<br />

and negotiated for the management of many<br />

site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks.<br />

Poor<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

293 |


4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained man power resources for effective management ?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and front lone staff in<br />

the site .<br />

Poor<br />

Few trained officers and front line staff who are<br />

posted in the site<br />

Fair ü<br />

A large number of trained officers and front<br />

lined staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and front line staff are<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

Poor<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives, but Fair<br />

not consistently or systematically assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is directly<br />

linked to achievement of relevant management<br />

objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic public participation in most aspects<br />

of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

| 294


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

complaints.<br />

Poor<br />

Complaints handling system operational but not<br />

responsive to individual issues and limited Fair<br />

follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good ü<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Fair<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed by<br />

PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are addressed<br />

effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good ü<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general and<br />

has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Fair<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides detailed<br />

insight into major management issues for most Good<br />

PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely provided<br />

on management and condition of public assets<br />

in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

295 |


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds with<br />

relevant PA category and/or threaten PA<br />

Poor<br />

values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally accord<br />

with relevant PA category and don't threaten Fair<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance PA Good ü<br />

values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA values.<br />

Very good<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

Poor<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken but<br />

neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting of<br />

management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is the<br />

maintenance schedule.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds are<br />

made available.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

| 296


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species populations<br />

declining.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Good<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Very good<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacing that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able to<br />

sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Poor<br />

Some biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most biological communities likely to be able to<br />

sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good<br />

All biological communities likely to be able to<br />

sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 How effective is the enforcement of WPA?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Serious violation of WPA takes place but cases<br />

This is a new question which has been added<br />

Poor<br />

not detected<br />

in Dr. Mathur’s format.<br />

Serious violation takes place, some cases<br />

detected and in a few cases prosecution<br />

Fair ü<br />

launched but no conviction has taken place<br />

Serious violation takes place, cases detected<br />

and in a few cases offenders convicted<br />

Good<br />

Serious violation takes place / violation do not<br />

take place, cases detected and in most of the<br />

cases offenders convicted.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

297 |


6.4(6.3) Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but have<br />

This question was 6.3 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />

Poor<br />

enhanced.<br />

revised format.<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.5(6.4) Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

This question was 6.4 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

revised format.<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

6.6(6.5) Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are hostile. Poor<br />

This question was 6.5 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />

Key neighbours/communities are supportive. Fair<br />

revised format.<br />

Most neighbours/communities are supportive of<br />

PA management.<br />

Good<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive of<br />

PA management.<br />

Very good ü<br />

6.7(6.6) Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or despite<br />

This question was 6.6 under Dr. Mathur’s<br />

management efforts, deterioration of cultural<br />

revised format.<br />

Poor<br />

heritage assets continues, or values are<br />

unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but deterioration<br />

continues.<br />

Fair<br />

Planned approach to management underway<br />

and deterioration of assets is being redressed.<br />

Good ü<br />

Planned approach to management underway<br />

and deterioration of assets is being significantly<br />

redressed.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

| 298


MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 05 10 50 37.5<br />

2. Planning 13 10 130 64.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 22.5<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 42.5<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 30.0<br />

6. Outcomes 07 10 70 45.0<br />

Total 39 390 242<br />

Overall Score<br />

62 %<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (Tripura)<br />

299 |


| 300


25. Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />

Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />

301 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

The values of the site has been very well<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

documented.<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good ü<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

All potential threats are being identified. The<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

threats cover (a) construction of 600MW power<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

house at KIMI (b) ITDC tourist lodge (c) Poaching<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

pattern (d) NTFR extraction. (e) Ecological threats<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

of the weeds has also been identified<br />

Good<br />

assessed.<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

Very good ü<br />

assessed.<br />

1.3 Is the site free from outside human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

Human settlement and encroachment has been<br />

Poor<br />

interference<br />

stopped.<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interference<br />

Fair<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference<br />

Good ü<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />

| 302


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP /WLS) and categorized (in terms of Zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

The categorisation and zonation has been done<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

but specific identification at the site has not yet<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

happed. Broadly area is known to the<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

department.<br />

Good ü<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Site identified correctly systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

The site has a draft management plan. That is<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

yet to be approved by higher authorities. Period<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive<br />

2005-2009<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

Yet to be done, but is modified as per<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

requirement<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

ad-hoc manner.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.4 Does the site safeguard the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Poor<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Fair<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />

303 |


2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

As per the management there were no stake<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

holder at the time of declaring the sanctuary. At<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

present some encroachers are claiming rights of<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

settlement.<br />

Good ü<br />

processes.<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

Very good<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

The job is restricted to cleaning weeds, water<br />

Poor<br />

entirely ad-hoc.<br />

tank construction only<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />

At present there is no reintroduction programme<br />

Poor<br />

adhoc.<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair ü<br />

[ it is to be decided if this point could be<br />

evaluated]<br />

programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.8 Does the site have an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Detailed strategy has been worked out, keeping<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

in mind the ground reality.<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Good<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />

| 304


2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

There is no major human wildlife conflict. Some<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

also not aware of the necessity and procedure of<br />

incident may not be reported also. Villagers are<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

reporting.<br />

Good ü<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network /<br />

Sessa Orchid Sanctuary and Eagle nest WLS<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

falls within the same landscape and broad<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

ecological unit. There are no other specific<br />

Fair<br />

into a network / landscape.<br />

activities required to homogenous and for<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

ecological integration. The declaration of the<br />

Good<br />

network / landscape<br />

nearby areas simultaneously as sanctuaries is a<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network<br />

farsighted and laudable exercise.<br />

Very good ü<br />

/ landscape.<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are the personnel well organized and managed with access adequate recourses?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

The personals are well organised.<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />

305 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

Resources are not adequate, but whatever<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management<br />

available are being utilised.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for pa<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives<br />

some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives..<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked with to priority actions and are funds released<br />

timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

The resources are linked with priority actions.<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

GoI release fund during Set-Oct, but state Govt.<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

releases it by Feb-Mar next year.<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

Some support from the NGO has been received<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />

| 306


3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

The resources are inadequate. The affords are<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

being taken to generate resources.<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained man power resources for effective management ?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Only one has been trained.<br />

Poor ü<br />

in the site .<br />

Few trained officers and front line staff who<br />

are posted in the site<br />

Fair<br />

A large number of trained officers and front<br />

lined staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and front line staff<br />

are posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

There is a linkage between the performance to<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

management objectives<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

There is no possibilities of public participation.<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

The situation of the site , pattern of the fringe<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

population and the low density do not allow<br />

Fair ü<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

the regular participation of the people.<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

Good<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />

management.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />

307 |


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

The mechanism does not exist. It can be<br />

Poor ü<br />

complaints.<br />

framed as and when required.<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

Good<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response Very good<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

As per the present circumstances there is no<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

linkage, but it will gradually take shape. There<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

are small demands coming from the fringe are<br />

Fair<br />

management.<br />

people, that will be taken care off.<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are<br />

addressed by PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

What ever materials are available to the<br />

Poor<br />

publicly available.<br />

department are accessible to the people.<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

There is a need of further activities in this<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

regard<br />

Fair ü<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of Very good<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />

| 308


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor<br />

The facilities are not adequate.<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair ü<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance Good<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Very good<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

The reporting system exists and working well.<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

A wireless operator at the beat office exists<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good ü<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

There is a system exists.<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />

309 |


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

Monitoring has been done. The census has<br />

Poor<br />

populations declining.<br />

been done for Elephant, leopard, Himalayan<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

Black bear etc. The census does not held<br />

Fair<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

regularly.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Good ü<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Very good<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacing that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Poor<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Fair<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

The threat has been identified and has been<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

abated.<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good ü<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

The expectation a re generally met<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />

| 310


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

The small population in the fringe are not<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

against, and there is no reason to evaluation<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

of the support status to the park<br />

Fair<br />

supportive.<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Cultural assets are being identified and<br />

management are aware about it. Separate<br />

protection is need offered now. If required<br />

they will offer.<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 27.5<br />

2. Planning 10 10 100 77.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 32.5<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 25.0<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 25.0<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 47.5<br />

Total 39 330 235.0<br />

Overall Score<br />

71 %<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary (Arunachal Pradesh)<br />

311 |


| 312


26. Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

313 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

The value of the site are well documented in the<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

management plan and a booklet prepared in Hindi<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

'Sohelwa Ke Van'. Values have been well<br />

Fair ü<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

assessed on the basis of which management<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

prescriptions are proposed but the monitoring<br />

Good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

system is week and needs improvement.<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

Very good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

The threats are well documented in the<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

management plan and management strategy has<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

accordingly been planned.<br />

Fair<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good ü<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

The PA has been created from the old Reserves<br />

Poor ü<br />

interference.<br />

of Sohelwa and Tulsipur and part of vested<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

forests of Balrampur Estate most of which have<br />

Fair<br />

interference.<br />

now the RF status. There are 180 villages within<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

5 km. from the PA boundary on <strong>India</strong>n side.<br />

Good<br />

interference.<br />

Nepal falls all along its Northern boundary. The<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

average width of PA is 6.7 km. only. The human<br />

interference.<br />

population in villages within 5 Km. from PA<br />

boundary in <strong>India</strong> is over 130,000 and cattle<br />

population is over 1,00,000. 63 villages fall close<br />

to the PA boundary, distance being 0-1 km. The<br />

pressure on the PA is in the form of grazing, fuel<br />

Very good<br />

wood collection, NTFP collection, timber felling<br />

and occasional poaching. Due to frequent<br />

change of PA Directors, little efforts to minimize<br />

the pressures were made. The present DFO is<br />

trying his best to stop these pressures and<br />

results have already started showing in some<br />

Ranges.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

| 314


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

The site is properly identified and has been<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

notified as WLS under Wildlife (Protection) Act<br />

Fair ü<br />

categorized.<br />

1972. No zonation has been done and the entire<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

WLS has the same management practices. Two<br />

Good<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

ranges to the east of the PA are under the<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

management of DFO, Sohelwa WLS and are<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

being treated as buffer. The tourism is allowed in<br />

Very good<br />

all important places. Though the number of<br />

visitors is limited. This is an important PA on<br />

Tarai Arc Landscape.<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

There is a comprehensive management plan.<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

Which is first for this PA for a period of 10 years<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive.<br />

from 2000-01 to 2009-10. With lot of new<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

technologies having evolved and good<br />

Good ü<br />

Plan.<br />

experience gained this needs updating.<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />

participatory process.<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

This is the first management plan of the PA which<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

is not due for revision. This needs updating<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

immediately.<br />

Fair ü<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

Good<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated Very good<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

315 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

The biodiversity value of the site is that this is a<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

connecting link of Tarai Arc Landscape and the<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

landscapes if secured has tremendous<br />

Fair<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

biodiversity value. In the North-West there are<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

following forest blocks with few gaps in between<br />

Good ü<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

and it then gets connected with Katarniaghat<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

WLS.<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Sohelwa- Kakadari-Charda-Chakia- Katarniaghat<br />

WLS. In the North are the Churia hills of Nepal<br />

with some contiguity with this PA. There is a big<br />

gap in the Eastern portion of <strong>India</strong> but through<br />

the forests in Nepal it has some connectivity with<br />

Very good<br />

the eastern most tiger habitat comprising of<br />

Chitwan N.P. in Nepal and Sohagibarwa WLS<br />

(UP) and Valmiki TR (Bihar) in <strong>India</strong>. The PA is<br />

linear in shape but has a vital linkage value for<br />

survival of tigers. During recent past wild<br />

elephants in small groups are visiting Sohelwa<br />

WLS every year.<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

Till now there has been little participation of<br />

Poor ü<br />

participation in planning.<br />

stakeholders in the planning process except<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

involvement of Budha Society, a Balrampur<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

based NGO which is actively represented by<br />

Good<br />

processes.<br />

Prof. Nagendra Singh of PG college Balrampur<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

who is also a WWF- <strong>India</strong> coordinator in<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Balrampur. Smt. Neharika Singh of Tapoban<br />

Farm near Bankatwa Range has also formed a<br />

NGO at local level and was seen taking some<br />

Very good<br />

interest in the management affairs of the P.A. Let<br />

us hope the interest is sustained on positive<br />

aspects and not just criticizing the management<br />

without positive support.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

| 316


2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?\<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

restoration.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

In the Annual Plan of Operation submitted to<br />

Govt. of <strong>India</strong> for 2006-07, Rs. 21.75 lakh was<br />

proposed for habitat improvement, water and soil<br />

conservation measures and survey and<br />

demarcation of boundary but hardly 5 lakh could<br />

be sanctioned. Similarly in 2005-06. 4 lakh was<br />

sanctioned for habitat improvement and survey<br />

and demarcation but only 1.88 lakh was<br />

sanctioned for control burning of grasses and<br />

weeds and Rs. 2 lakh for soil conservation works.<br />

No budget is provided by State Govt. for these<br />

works. Habitat improvement consisted of<br />

grassland development, uprooting of lantana<br />

weeds and soil conservation measures like<br />

construction of check dams etc. With the<br />

available budget no systematic planning is<br />

possible. Monitoring is being done at the<br />

DFO/ACF level and also at higher levels.<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />

adhoc.<br />

Poor -<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair -<br />

programmes.<br />

No Programme being taken up.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Good -<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good -<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

The strategy for protection is continued patrolling<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü by frontline staff, vigilance, intelligence collection<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

and checking of illegal activities like grazing, fuel<br />

Good<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

wood and NTFP collection, checking of poaching<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

and illicit felling etc. No regular patrolling scheme<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

is drawn nor there is systematic intelligence<br />

network.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

317 |


2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor ü There has been an intense human wildlife conflict<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

killed and 52 injured by wolves in the villages<br />

in the PA during last 5 years. 91 children were<br />

Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

around the P.A. Intensive efforts were put in by<br />

Good<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

the management to eliminate the problem. Cattle<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

lifting incidents by tiger/leopard are negligible due<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

to prey availability in the forest but damage to<br />

agricultural crops by wild boars Nilgai and other<br />

herbivores is substantial, large number of cases<br />

Very good<br />

of payment of compensation on account of<br />

killing/injury by wolves still remain to be<br />

decided/paid. Due to large number of villages<br />

close to the PA the conflict is likely to remain<br />

unless concerted efforts are made.<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

As is c learly explained under point no. 2.4 above,<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

this site is very important in the Tarai Arc<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

Landscape and though the management is<br />

Fair ü<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

aware of the value of the site as an important<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

linkage in the TAL but little efforts are being<br />

Good<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

made for restoration of linkages etc. The forests<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

of Bahraich/ Srawasti districts are under<br />

landscape.<br />

jurisdiction of DFO, Sohelwa and are also<br />

important as a viable tiger conservation habitat<br />

but there needs to be a action plan for<br />

coordination between the two. Similarly, there<br />

Very good<br />

needs to be more meaningful dialogue with<br />

authorities of adjoining Nepal forests. Many<br />

artificial and natural water bodies in the PA<br />

attract migratory birds during winter and their<br />

protection is part of the PA management.<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

The personnel are used exclusively for<br />

management and protection of wildlife and its<br />

habitat but they lack training and are not fully<br />

oriented into it. As they were previously in the<br />

traditional forest working their attitude is yet to be<br />

changed. They have sufficient number of fire<br />

arms and there is satisfactory communication<br />

network but the supply of uniforms, timely<br />

payment of TA etc. and provision of motorcycle<br />

and bicycles for field staff remains to be met.<br />

Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

| 318


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

The position of four wheel vehicles is satisfactory<br />

but motor cycles and bicycles for frontline staff<br />

needs urgent attention. Though the position of<br />

fire arms is good but their upkeep & training of<br />

staff to efficiently handle them is lacking. Most of<br />

the buildings are old and need repairs. Wireless<br />

network needs expansion.<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

The fund position for last 5 years is as under :<br />

Poor<br />

are never released in time.<br />

Year Total funding Provided Percentage<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

(other than under CSS of CSS<br />

salary &<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />

collection)<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

2001-02 1129.67 7.55 0.66%<br />

2002-03 70.14 8.40 11.90%<br />

2003-04 29.17 18.00 61.70%<br />

2004-05 45.77 31.80 69.50%<br />

2005-06 36.77 31.83 86.50%<br />

In 2001-02 & 2002-03 main funding came from<br />

World Bank aided Forestry Project and also from<br />

Border area Development Scheme. The budget<br />

allotted by State Govt. under fire control plan and<br />

communication was mainly used in the 2 Ranges<br />

in buffer area. Substantial funding by Govt. of <strong>India</strong><br />

under CSS Development of National Park &<br />

Sanctuaries came from 2003-04 onwards. The<br />

State Govt. bears the salary, wages and other<br />

allowances of the establishment to the tune of 65<br />

to 70 lakhs annually. During 2006-07 a total of<br />

34.57 lakh has been sanctioned under CSS out of<br />

which 24.10 has been released to State Govt. but<br />

State Govt. has so far released only 12.05 lakh to<br />

the PA. The release by State Govt. is generally<br />

delayed.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

319 |


3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

So far only WWF-<strong>India</strong> has been supporting the<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

PA in terms of equipment. They have so far<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

provided the following equipment :<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

Bolero Camper field vehicle - 1<br />

Fair<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Yamaha Crux Motor Cycles - 4<br />

explored.<br />

Wireless sets with chargers: Fixed - 7 Nos.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

Handsets<br />

- 20 Nos.<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good ü Mosquito Nets<br />

- 200 Nos.<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

Jackets<br />

- 200 Nos.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

Wildlife Census kits<br />

- 70 Nos.<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Very good<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Resource is insufficient and more support is<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü needed under CSS & also for the State Govt.<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Front line staff position is good but the training is<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks.<br />

lacking and average age is high. The vacancy in<br />

ACF level needs to be filled for better<br />

supervision of works as DFO has to remain busy<br />

Very good<br />

with miscellaneous duties at district level.<br />

Frequent changes of DFOs (7 during last 7<br />

years) has not helped the management to push<br />

forward the planning and implementation.<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

Neither any officer nor any of the frontline staff is<br />

Poor ü<br />

in the site.<br />

trained in wildlife.<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

| 320


4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

Staff performance is management linked as far<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

as the protection part of management goes but<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

for meeting other management objectives the<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

performance needs more oriented.<br />

Fair ü<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Very good<br />

management objectives.<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

Public participation in management is very<br />

Poor ü<br />

management.<br />

little. One Balrampur based NGO is involved<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

in few aspects of management. Some help in<br />

Fair<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

information collection is taken and all the<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

works in the PA are done by local people on<br />

Good<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

payment of wages.<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />

management.<br />

4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

The complaints are routinely handled and<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

there is no responsive system in place.<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

321 |


4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

There is heavy dependence of the local<br />

Poor ü<br />

management.<br />

people on forest resource of the P.A. No<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management strategy is there in place to<br />

Fair<br />

management.<br />

reduce this dependence by providing<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

alternatives except the policing. The women<br />

Good<br />

by PA management.<br />

are by and large illiterate and poor and their<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

livelihood issues need to be addressed<br />

communities especially women are<br />

Very good<br />

urgently.<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

assets.<br />

Fair<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Management Plan has adequate information<br />

but needs to be put on website of the PA,<br />

which does not exist at the moment. At least<br />

its copy can be put in public library at district<br />

HQrs. The booklet in Hindi "Sohelwa ke Van"<br />

published recently and widely distributed is a<br />

good effort. The brochure in Hindi has good<br />

tourism related information and general<br />

information.<br />

5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The number of visitors is low (1500-1600<br />

annually). The presence of Forest Rest<br />

Houses in deep forests with heritage values<br />

could be a good attraction. The brochure has<br />

enough useful information for the visitors.<br />

Staff is friendly and Rest Houses have good<br />

Chaukidars. There are signage at important<br />

places which need more planning.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

| 322


5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

The management trends are not being<br />

Poor ü<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

systematically evaluated. This is the first<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

evaluation of its kind done by an external<br />

Fair<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

agency based on IUCN guidelines.<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

Good<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends Very good<br />

undertaken.<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

The maintenance schedule as per<br />

Poor<br />

schedule.<br />

departmental practice for infrastructure/assets<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

exists but funds are not adequate for their<br />

Fair ü<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

maintenance specially for maintenance and<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

upkeep of staff quarters, bridges and culverts,<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

Good<br />

fire arms, wireless sets and Forest Rest<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Houses.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

6. Outcomes<br />

Very good<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The estimation figures maintained by the<br />

management show a declining trend for tiger<br />

population and that is evident from the<br />

decline shown in the important ungulate<br />

population (Cheetal, Sambar & Nilgai).<br />

Panther population shows an increase and<br />

that is evident from the signs found by me on<br />

the ground. This is another indication of<br />

decrease in tiger population. During my field<br />

visit of two days I could see pug marks of<br />

one large female in Bankatwa range close to<br />

Pipraha FRH near Hathiyakund Nala and<br />

pugmarks of a male tiger in Mendhkiya beat<br />

of same Range behind Banghogwa bund.<br />

The habitat is good and has potential for<br />

good tiger population provided the biotic<br />

pressures are reduced.<br />

Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

323 |


6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

The forest quality in most parts is excellent<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

but due to overgrazing in the past<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

regeneration of important species is deficient<br />

Fair ü<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

and there is infestation of lantana and few<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

other weeds. The tigers are said to be<br />

Good<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

breeding and so is the case with other<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

carnivores and herbivores but with high<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

disturbance level the ratio is likely to be<br />

Very good<br />

affected. Bird populations look more<br />

healthier.<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

The present DFO is very particular about<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

minimizing of biotic pressures and has been<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

successful to some extent in some ranges<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü with the support of ACF and RFO. Illicit filling<br />

All threats to the site have been abated.<br />

of timber species is a constant threat which<br />

has been checked to a great extent by the<br />

present DFO. The head load lifting of<br />

Very good<br />

firewood continues and needs to be<br />

checked. There has been a decline in<br />

poaching cases also.<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

There are only 1500-1600 visitors to the PA<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

annually whose remarks in FRH registers<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü show that their expectations were generally<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

met.<br />

6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

The large number of villages on one side of<br />

Poor ü<br />

hostile.<br />

PA have experienced horrifying menace of<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

wolves during past 5 years and are not<br />

Fair<br />

supportive.<br />

supportive of PA management in general.<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

Their dependence on forest resources and<br />

Good<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

absence of alternatives also makes them<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

antagonistic when they are checked or<br />

Very good<br />

of PA management.<br />

restricted to go to the forest.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

| 324


6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The Forest Rest Houses are the most<br />

important cultural heritages present in the<br />

PA most being close to 100 years old. They<br />

have been well protected. Rajia Tal in<br />

Sohelwa East constructed in Moghal period<br />

by Razia Begam and the caves known as<br />

"Angulimal Caves" in Bhainsasur beat of<br />

Tulsipur Range are also well protected. The<br />

Tharus, a Schedule Tribe of Tarai inhabit<br />

many villages in Sohelwa West, Rampur and<br />

Bhabar Ranges and their traditions are well<br />

protected.<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 15.0<br />

2. Planning 10 10 90 47.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 27.5<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 17.5<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 20.0<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 35.0<br />

Total 33 320 166.5<br />

Overall Score<br />

52%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Uttar Pradesh)<br />

325 |


| 326


27. Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

327 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

Sultanpur NP is a small NP in a highly<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

industrialized and urbanized city of Gudgaon with<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

just 1.4 km<br />

Fair<br />

2 area. This is basically a waterbody<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

attracting migratory birds in large numbers in<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

winters. 1.21 km 2 area was declared as Wildlife<br />

Good ü<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Sanctuary in 1971 under Punjab Wildlife<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

Preservation Act of 1959. Later the area was<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

increased to 1.42 km 2 in 1991 and simultaneously<br />

Very good<br />

it was declared as a NP. The value of the site as<br />

a important wetland attracting large number of<br />

migratory birds are well documented.<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

As far as the site proper is concerned, the threats<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

are well documented and assessed but the<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

biggest threat to the site is industrial development<br />

Fair ü<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

in its immediate vicinity. Gudgaon is developing<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

as one of the most modern cities in the country<br />

Good<br />

assessed.<br />

and its proximity to the capital city of Delhi has<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

accelerated its growth within very short time. This<br />

assessed.<br />

NP though small in extent could be very important<br />

as the lung of Gudgaon as also a very important<br />

destination for weekend relaxation. A buffer zone<br />

of 136 km 2 around the sanctuary was declared at<br />

the time of notification which was closed to all<br />

type of hunting and trapping, encompassing 17<br />

villages. At the moment there is great pressure<br />

right at the doorstep of the NP for establishing<br />

industries but the State Govt. has not taken any<br />

Very good<br />

steps under <strong>Environment</strong>al Protection Act to<br />

declare a ecosensitive zone around this NP. This<br />

threat is going to stop the migratory birds to come<br />

to the site thereby loosing all its charm in spite of<br />

years of efforts put in here. If the state Govt’s<br />

enthusiasm to bring in large industries close to<br />

this NP is not checked then the dream of great<br />

ornithologist late Salim Ali, Mr. Peter Jackson the<br />

then IUCN member and our late P.M. Smt. Indira<br />

Gandhi to make it a great destination for<br />

migratory birds, will get shattered.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

| 328


1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

The site proper has little or no human or biotic<br />

Poor<br />

interference.<br />

interference as such but the threat mentioned in<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

para 1.2 above could ruin the future of this<br />

Fair ü<br />

interference.<br />

important destination of migratory birds.<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

This is a small P.A. with 50% of the area being<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

under water. Proper zonation within the NP has<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

been done to denote areas for visitors. The map<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

with paths inside NP which visitors could take is<br />

Good ü<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

displayed at the reception. The zonation is in<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

terms of water-body and forest area. Large herds<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans. Very good<br />

of Nilgai could be seen in Forested area roaming<br />

around undisturbed.<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

A Management Plan was drafted by the previous<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

I/c of the NP for 2000-01 to 2004-05 but was not<br />

Fair ü<br />

comprehensive.<br />

finally approved by CWLW. The M.P. is a good<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

effort which needs to be edited and approved<br />

Good<br />

Plan.<br />

with some modifications.<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />

participatory process.<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

There is a draft MP which needs to be updated<br />

Poor ü<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

and approved.<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated Very good<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

329 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

The site is very small and well fenced all around.<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

The biodiversity is in terms of migratory and<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

resident bird species, some mammals, reptiles<br />

Fair ü<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

and amphibians. The tree species are mostly<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

planted and few natural shrubs, herbs and<br />

Good<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

grasses are coming up. Site being small and<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

fenced threatened biodiversity values are<br />

Very good<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

safeguarded.<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

Stakeholders are mainly visitors, one guide and<br />

Poor ü<br />

participation in planning.<br />

villagers of surrounding villages. There is no<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

opportunity given so far to stakeholders to<br />

Stakeholders participate in mos t planning<br />

participate in planning.<br />

Good<br />

processes.<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

Very good<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

restoration.<br />

Fair<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The NP has 50% of habitat as a waterbody. Most<br />

important planning for habitat restoration is to<br />

keep the waterbody alive. With the help of CSS<br />

budget the management has got a permanent<br />

water supply from Gudgaon water supply scheme<br />

due to which the water remains throughout the<br />

season.Other programmes like weed eradication,<br />

moud construction and maintenance is done<br />

regularly.<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />

adhoc.<br />

Poor -<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair -<br />

programmes.<br />

There is no such programme in the PA.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Good -<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good -<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

| 330


2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

The site is fenced from all around as it is<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

surrounded by habitation and agriculture. The<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

fence is being strengthened and there is little<br />

Good ü<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

infringement by cattle or human beings.<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

The only conflict is raiding of agricultural fields<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

which is in progress this problem will be reduced.<br />

around the PA by Nilgai. With repair of fence<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

Stray dogs also get into the PA and harass birds<br />

Good<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

and fawns.This will also be mitigated with<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

strengthening of fence.<br />

Very good<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

This is an isolated site mostly used by migratory<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

birds. Migratory birds fly to nearby areas for<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

feeding. Different species depart from and arrive<br />

Fair ü<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

to the site at different times. There are few water<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

bodies in the nearby areas and river Yamuna is<br />

Good<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

also not very far. Bhinderwas WLS, which is also<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

a site for migratory birds is at a distance of 50<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

km. and Okhla WLS is also approachable.<br />

Bhinderwas WLS is well maintained.<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Area being small the management staff<br />

consisting of a Inspector I/c, 1 Sub Inspector and<br />

2 wildlife Gaurds are well organized and they<br />

have one jeep, one motor bike, a wireless field<br />

station, walkie-talki set and a revolver with the<br />

Inspector. The resources are enough for this<br />

small N.P.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

331 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

The resources are enough and well organized<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

and managed for this small NP.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

are never released in time.<br />

Poor<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released<br />

in time.<br />

Fair<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The availability of budget from State Govt. and<br />

centrally sponsored scheme has been as under<br />

for the last 5 years excluding salary of staff:<br />

Year State Budget CSS Total<br />

2001-02 8.24 1.71 9.95<br />

2002-03 0.69 5.60 6.29<br />

2003-04 0.64 12.05 12.69<br />

2004-05 25.16 12.13 37.29<br />

2005-06 18.28 22.85 41.13<br />

In addition to the above the State Govt. spends 7<br />

to 8 lakh per year on salaries and wages of the<br />

PA staff. The centrally sponsored scheme has<br />

been very helpful for the NP due to which the<br />

water supply to the water body could be restored,<br />

deepening of lake at desired places could be<br />

done,fencing is being repaired and interpretive<br />

facilities could be made. Rs. 68.27 lakhs has<br />

been sanctioned for 2006-07 under CSS<br />

including 7.335 lakhs of previous year unspent<br />

balance out of which 42.50 has been released in<br />

1 st installment and the total amount has been<br />

released to field.<br />

Some major amount of CSS remained unspent<br />

during 2003-04. Rs. 20 lakhs were sanctioned for<br />

setting up of a Biodiversity Conservation Centre<br />

out of which only 1.5 lakhs were spent during<br />

that year on purchase of bricks and sand. The<br />

scheme has now reportedly been dropped and<br />

bricks etc. utilized elsewhere.Rs.20 .25 lacs<br />

sanctioned in 2005-06 for raising of fence has<br />

also not been fully utilized as 7.335 lakh is<br />

unspent which is being utilized this year. The<br />

utilization of central funds has otherwise been<br />

usefully done. Fund release has by and large<br />

been done timely by central and State Govts.<br />

Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

| 332


3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

The Salim Ali Centre for Awareness was set up<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

by BNHS and bird ringing was also done by<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

BNHS for studying the migratory birds.<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

Resources are sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks. Good ü<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

The present Inspector I/c of the NP was trained<br />

Poor<br />

in the site.<br />

in Bandhavgarh Wildlife Training Centre.<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

Previous Inspector I/c was a diploma trained<br />

Fair ü<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

from WII, Gaurds are not trained but one of the<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

gaurds Mr. Bharat Lal has good exposure to<br />

Good<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

identification and habits of migratory and<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

resident birds.<br />

Very good<br />

posted in the site.<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

The PA staff performance is purely management<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

linked for achievement of management<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

objectives.<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

333 |


4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

The public participation is poor and needs to<br />

Poor ü<br />

management.<br />

be improved.<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />

management.<br />

4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

There is a routine system of handling<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

complaints which is not responsive enough to<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />

get good feedback about performance of the<br />

Management.<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

There are no communities directly dependent<br />

Poor ü<br />

management.<br />

on the PA as it is very small in extent. It can<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

provide livelihood in the form of guides who<br />

Fair<br />

management.<br />

can be trained in bird identification and<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

registered as nature guides. One local guide<br />

Good<br />

by PA management.<br />

who is well versed with migratory and resident<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

bird species is working on his own in the PA<br />

communities especially women are<br />

after a formal training, since last 4-5 years but<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

he has not been registered by the PA in spite<br />

of his repeated requests. Instead of<br />

discouraging him by not registering, more and<br />

Very good<br />

more guides from neighbouring villages<br />

should be trained and registered. This will<br />

help PA Management in the long run in<br />

keeping away the large industrial interests<br />

right at the door of the PA.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

| 334


5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

assets.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

There is a draft Management Plan prepared<br />

but not approved. It has adequate information.<br />

A booklet prepared by Kalpvriksh- “Small and<br />

Beautiful Sultanpur National Park” with very<br />

good information and background history<br />

etc.is available. A folder prepared long back<br />

when it was a Sanctuary needs immediate<br />

revision.<br />

5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The NP has got Dr. Salim Ali Centre, Library<br />

and Education and interpretation centre as<br />

also a binocular. The reception is well<br />

managed but there are no registered guides.<br />

One F.Gd is well versed with migratory and<br />

resident birds. A local trained guide is also<br />

available but he has not yet been registered.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

335 |


5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

Initially monthly bird counts in this tiny NP<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

were initiated by Kalpvriksh a Delhi based<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

NGO who sent its members to the Park<br />

Fair<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

regularly. On the basis of the observations<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

and studies of the members of Kalpvriksh<br />

Good ü<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

detailed inventories of plants, mammals,<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

birds, reptiles and amphibians and butterflies<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

were prepared and appended to a informative<br />

undertaken.<br />

booklet named “Small and Beautiful-<br />

Sultanpur National Park” which was published<br />

by Kalpvriksh. This is perhaps the only such<br />

compilation based on detailed studies for this<br />

PA. The study also indicated that the<br />

Sultanpur Jheel was drying up and is also<br />

turning more saline. In spite of efforts to<br />

supplement water by bore wells the water<br />

body had dried and migratory birds had<br />

Very good<br />

slopped visiting this place and during 1995 to<br />

2000 there was no water in the Jheel. Now a<br />

5 cu.sec. water channed has been taken from<br />

Gudgaon water supply scheme which not only<br />

keeps the water body alive but has also<br />

addressed the salinity problem. Almost a daily<br />

count of important migratory bird species and<br />

total birds is done and displayed on a board at<br />

the reception. Monthly count needs to be<br />

published and handed out to visitors. The<br />

census of Nilgai is also being done. Water<br />

level of the Jheel is also monitored.<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

The PA being small, the infrastructure and<br />

assets are all at one place and their<br />

maintenance is easy to monitor. Reception,<br />

Salim Ali Centre and interpretation c entre are<br />

well maintained as also the staff buildings and<br />

parking, lawn etc. The fencing needs regular<br />

maintenance for which State Govt. should<br />

keep yearly provision.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

| 336


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable. Good ü<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Very good<br />

The population of migratory birds visiting the<br />

NP depends more on the external factors.<br />

However, there has been a encouraging<br />

trend as far as the total number is concerned<br />

but among individual species, the number<br />

keeps on varying. Number of flamingos<br />

visiting the NP has gone down. Due to heavy<br />

urbanization and industrialization in<br />

Gudgaon which is extending towards the<br />

Park at a alarming speed many birds like<br />

Osprey, Sirkeer cuckoo, black necked stork<br />

are becoming rarer. The number of Nilgai is<br />

increasing fast and may become a cause of<br />

concern for the management in near future.<br />

Special efforts to maintain the fish population<br />

of indigenous species suitable for a larger<br />

range of birds are urgently called for.<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

After arrangement of regular water flow in<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

the lake and control of salinity the water<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

fauna and flora is improving. The depth of<br />

Fair<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

the lake is being maintained in such a way<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

that it can support more species of migratory<br />

Good ü<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

birds. As far as the terristrial species of flora<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

and fauna are concerned, there is more of<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Prospis juliflora which needs to be kept<br />

Very good<br />

under check specially from shallow parts of<br />

the lake.<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

The main threat from stray cattle and dogs<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

will be minimized once the fence repair and<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü raising is completed which is in progress.<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

The threat to salinity of water and volume of<br />

All threats to the site have been abated.<br />

water has been abated by getting the water<br />

connection form Gudgaon water supply<br />

Very good<br />

scheme. A Siltation tank which is nearing<br />

completion will also reduce the rate of<br />

siltation of the lake.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

337 |


6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

The number of visitors in 1989-90 had gone<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü up to 36000 which came down as the lake<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

dried. After 2000 the revival of lake has<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

again brought up the number to 26,389 in<br />

2005-06. This year during November and till<br />

first week of December the number had<br />

reached 17307. With Gudgaon developing<br />

into a most modern populated city the<br />

number is likely to go up very high. Special<br />

efforts will have to be made to regulate large<br />

tourist numbers and a fee hike may be one<br />

of the solutions.Restriction of daily numbers<br />

Very good<br />

with wide publicity and closing the Park once<br />

a week could also be introduced. Area of<br />

park being small, picnicking needs to be<br />

strictly prohibited and expansion of lawns will<br />

be very harmful in long run. The entry inside<br />

fence along viewing paths could also be<br />

regulated and guided through local trained<br />

and registered guides. At present there is<br />

large crowd on weekends which needs to be<br />

strictly regulated.<br />

6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

There is little or no dialogue or involvement<br />

Poor ü<br />

hostile.<br />

of local communities. Area being small is<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

managed mostly by regulations. Public<br />

Fair<br />

supportive.<br />

support needs to be cultivated, particularly of<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

neighbouring villages to keep the outside<br />

Good<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

pressure on check.<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

Very good<br />

of PA management.<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The only heritage cultural or otherwise is the<br />

Sultanpur Jheel which has been revived and<br />

is being protected and sustained as a<br />

important destination for migratory birds.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

| 338


MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 17.5<br />

2. Planning 9 10 90 47.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 35.0<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 22.5<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 25.0<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 35.0<br />

Total 33 320 182.5<br />

Overall Score<br />

57%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sultanpur National Park (Haryana)<br />

339 |


| 340


28. Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

341 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

The values have been identified in the<br />

Poor<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

management plan, but not systematically<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

monitored.<br />

Fair ü<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

The threats are identified in the management plan<br />

Poor<br />

assessed.<br />

but not systematically asses sed.<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

The site has considerable human of biotic<br />

Poor<br />

interference.<br />

interference especially from included population.<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Fair ü<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

| 342


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Core of buffer zones have been identified, but<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

detailed sub zones within buffer not yet properly<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

worked out.<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

The site has a comprehensive (6 volumes)<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

management plan prepared on scientific<br />

Fair<br />

comprehensive.<br />

guidelines, but not yet formally approved.<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

Current plan expires at the end of 2006-07.<br />

Poor<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

Exercise for revision of the management plan has<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

already started.<br />

Fair<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good ü<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

343 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

While the forests of flora are adequately<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

protected, but it cannot be said that all found<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

resources are fully protected.<br />

Fair<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good ü<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

The stake holders participation is there on issues<br />

Poor<br />

participation in planning.<br />

like census. Eco-development program of<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü awareness development<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

Major items of habitat restoration programmes<br />

Poor<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

are detailed in the management plan of works are<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

under taken accordingly subject to fund<br />

availability.<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good ü<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

Planning for re-introduction of Barasingha was<br />

Poor ü<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

early done, but no effort taken to carry out the<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

same<br />

programmes are in place for<br />

Fair<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

| 344


2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

The site has a comprehensive protection strategy<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

but outcome is eclipsed by limited staff.<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Human wildlife conflict in terms of crop damage<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

monkeys.<br />

by wildlife is there from wild boar, bears and<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

The site is a part of national biogeographic<br />

Poor<br />

landscape.<br />

network currently, a proposal to create a tiger<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

reserve by expanding the sanctuary in the south<br />

Fair<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

to include part of Khariar Forest Division is<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

pending with Govt. of <strong>India</strong>.<br />

Good ü<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

Very good<br />

landscape.<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Fair<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

The number of staff though very limited are<br />

explicitly working towards management<br />

objectives.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

345 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

Existing resources are well organized but these<br />

Poor<br />

for PA management.<br />

are inadequate compared to the requirements.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

are never released in time.<br />

Poor<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released<br />

in time.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

Limited resources available are allocated to<br />

priority actions of some funds are released in<br />

time.<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

NGO’s contribution is limited to voluntary<br />

Poor<br />

management of the site.<br />

participation in census and public awareness<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

programmes.<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

| 346


3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor ü For an area of 600 sq km 51 staff and noly about<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

30-40 lakhs of regular development expenditure<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

is too inadequate<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

The site has no trained manpower in wildlife<br />

Poor ü<br />

in the site.<br />

management.<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

Most of limited staff are deployed for achieving<br />

Poor<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

the management objectives.<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

Systematic approach is there for involving<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

local people in eco-development works public<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

awareness programmes and voluntary<br />

Fair<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

support for fire protection and information<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

gathering.<br />

Good ü<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />

management.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

347 |


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

Complaints are entertained but not logged to<br />

Poor<br />

complaints.<br />

ensure timely of effective redressed.<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

Few Livelihood issues are addressed to some<br />

Poor<br />

management.<br />

extent through limited eco-development<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

works. Complaints from local villagers for loss<br />

Fair ü<br />

management.<br />

of livelihood for establishment of sanctuary<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

are there.<br />

Good<br />

by PA management.<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

Very good<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

Only a general leaflet with basic information of<br />

Poor<br />

publicly available.<br />

the sanctuary is publicly available.<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Fair ü<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

| 348


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Limited visitors services and facilities<br />

available. Interpretation centers are primitive<br />

in nature of materials and display, through<br />

some of the buildings are good.<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

Reporting systems on major issues are there,<br />

Poor<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

but these are not done in systematic manner<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

evaluation of programmers are abhor.<br />

Fair ü<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

Good<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends Very good<br />

undertaken.<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Recently systematic inventory of works are<br />

being carried out, but funds are inadequate<br />

for proper maintenance and upkeep.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

349 |


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Even though census figures shows increase<br />

of wildlife for most of the ssp, absences of<br />

sighting of spp by team members and<br />

reports of local people, do not reveal that the<br />

position is that happy.<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

Situation is reasonably good for flora, but it<br />

Poor<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

cannot be conclusively stated that faunal<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

position is also equally good.<br />

Fair<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain nati ve biodiversity.<br />

Good ü<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

Threats to the site are minimized in general<br />

Poor<br />

have enhanced.<br />

through enforcement and public<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair<br />

participation.<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Expectations of visitors are met with respect<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü to landscape and floral conservation, but it<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

hardly meets the expectations with respect<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

to wild animals.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

| 350


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

People who have been involved in ecodevelopment<br />

and public awareness<br />

Poor<br />

hostile.<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

programmes are generally supportive to<br />

Fair ü<br />

supportive.<br />

protected areas management.<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Through no planned effort is there for<br />

preservation of cultural heritage, the general<br />

protection offered to the area has salutary<br />

effects in redressing the deterioration of<br />

assets.<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 15<br />

2. Planning 9 10 100 65<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 25<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 27.5<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 22.5<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 37.5<br />

Total 32 330 192.5<br />

Overall Score<br />

58%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa)<br />

351 |


| 352


29. Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />

Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />

353 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

Poor<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

Fair ü<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Values identified but not systematically assessed<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

assessed.<br />

Poor<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

Fair ü<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Threats generally identified but not systematically<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed mapped.<br />

Good<br />

assessed.<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Poor<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

Fair ü<br />

interference.<br />

There are some biotic pressures from people<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

staying inside the sanctuary.<br />

Good<br />

interference.<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />

| 354


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

Fair<br />

categorized.<br />

The Sanctuary does not have any zonation, but 5<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

Good ü km of buffer zone is there around the sanctuary.<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

Fair ü<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Management plan covers the period 2000-01 to<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Good<br />

2009-10 and approved. It is however not<br />

Plan.<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a Very good<br />

participatory process.<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

Poor<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

Fair<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

The present Management Plan is operational and<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

Good ü would be revised after expiry.<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated Very good<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Poor<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

Fair ü<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Most of the animal spp. are on decline, but the<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

plan spp. are largely safeguarded.<br />

Good<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />

355 |


2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

participation in planning.<br />

Poor<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü<br />

Stakeholders participation is limited to some<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

Good<br />

areas and only on some aspects.<br />

processes.<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair ü<br />

Limited planning at monitoring for habitat<br />

restoration.<br />

restoration programme.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

Good<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />

adhoc.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair<br />

programmes.<br />

No re-introduction programme is in place.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü<br />

Protection strategy is general in nature and<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

Good<br />

limited due less staff, non-availability of arms and<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

communications.<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

Very good<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />

| 356


2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

Fair ü<br />

In spite of less human-wildlife conflict, it is<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

Good<br />

landing into some killings of wildlife every year.<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Poor<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

Fair<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

The area long with sitanandi is proposed to be<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

covered by a new tiger reserve.<br />

Good<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good ü<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Limited staff work with limited resources, duties<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

not linked to management objectives.<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Very good<br />

management objectives.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />

357 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair ü<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Resources allocated to PA management but not<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

prioritized as per management objectives.<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Very good<br />

management objectives.<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

are never released in time.<br />

Poor<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair ü<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

Resource allocation is fluctuating and not always<br />

released in time.<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

management of the site.<br />

Poor<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

explored.<br />

Fair ü<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

Global Tiger patrol has provided two Gypsy, one<br />

is used by DFO and the other by the ACF. WTI<br />

is providing research support for wild buffalo.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />

| 358


3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor<br />

State Government have provided resources for<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks. Fair ü<br />

conservation of wildlife and also fund of 12<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

th<br />

Finance Commission.<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

in the site.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

Only one Forest Guard is wildlife trained.<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

Poor<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

assessed.<br />

Fair<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

ü<br />

Atleast Staff’s performance is linked to<br />

management objective of PA.<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

Fair ü<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Public participation is limited in some areas<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

Good<br />

and with respect to some aspects only.<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA Very good<br />

management.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />

359 |


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

complaints.<br />

Poor<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair ü<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Complaints are entertained but follow-up is<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

limited and not systematic.<br />

Good<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response Very good<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

Fair ü Community based tourism takes care of some<br />

management.<br />

aspects of livelihood, so also the leaf and<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

Good<br />

cup/plate stitching and sale of local people<br />

by PA management.<br />

(FPCLs).<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

Very good<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

assets.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

Publicly available document is generalized in<br />

nature and not liked to management<br />

accountability or public assets.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />

| 360


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

Fair ü<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

Visitors facilities are limited and Interpretation<br />

Centres not properly organized.<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

Poor<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

Fair ü<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Annual report contains 19 stems, which are<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

reported upon each year, but systematic<br />

Good<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

evaluation of stems are not done.<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends Very good<br />

undertaken.<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Maintenance schedule is prescribed under<br />

Management Plan of the Sanctuary.<br />

Fluctuating fund flow however creates<br />

impediments for works.<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />

361 |


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining. Poor ü<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

Most of the species are declining and some<br />

have researched critical stage.<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Poor<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

Fair ü Plant communities are generally stable and<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

may sustain themselves, but status of wild<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

Good<br />

animals are not at all happy.<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

have enhanced.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü Only some threats to site have been abated.<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü Expectations met in terms of landscapes and<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

vegetation but not in terms of wild animals.<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />

| 362


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

hostile.<br />

Poor<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

Fair ü<br />

supportive.<br />

Key neighbours and communities are<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive to conservation.<br />

Good<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Poor<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

Values of cultural heritage sites know but no<br />

managemental intervention for their<br />

protection, but general protection helps in its<br />

conservation.<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 15<br />

2. Planning 10 10 100 57.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 25.0<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 25.0<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 22.5<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 27.5<br />

Total 33 330 172.50<br />

Overall Score<br />

52%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh)<br />

363 |


| 364


30. Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />

Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />

365 |


1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented,<br />

assessed or monitored.<br />

Poor<br />

Values generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed and monitored.<br />

Fair<br />

Most values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

All values systematically identified and<br />

assessed and monitored.<br />

Very good ü<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or<br />

assessed.<br />

Poor<br />

Threats generally identified but not<br />

systematically assessed.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Good<br />

All threats systematically identified and<br />

assessed.<br />

Very good ü<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Poor ü<br />

The site has some human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Fair<br />

The site has little human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Good<br />

The site has no human and biotic<br />

interference.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />

| 366


2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

categorized.<br />

Fair<br />

Site identified correctly but not<br />

systematically categorized.<br />

Good<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically<br />

categorized with proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good ü<br />

2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor<br />

Management Plan exist but not<br />

comprehensive.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management<br />

Plan.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based<br />

Management Plan prepared through a<br />

participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review<br />

and update of Management Plan.<br />

Poor<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in<br />

adhoc manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and<br />

systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management Plan routinely,<br />

systematically and scientifically updated<br />

through a participatory process.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />

367 |


2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard the threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Poor<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Fair<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of<br />

threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Good ü<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened<br />

biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder<br />

participation in planning.<br />

Poor<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning<br />

processes.<br />

Good ü<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically<br />

participate in all planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for habitat<br />

Fair<br />

restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

generally well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are<br />

thoroughly planned and monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely<br />

adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring<br />

programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair<br />

programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally<br />

well planned and monitored.<br />

Good<br />

Reintroduc tion programmes are thoroughly<br />

planned and monitored.<br />

Very good ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />

| 368


2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection<br />

strategy but is not very effective.<br />

Good ü<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very<br />

effective protection strategy.<br />

Very good<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant. Poor<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few humanwildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many<br />

human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Good<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating<br />

all human-wildlife conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Poor<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site<br />

into a network/ landscape.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a<br />

network/ landscape.<br />

Good<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/<br />

landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />

369 |


3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated<br />

for PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA<br />

management but not systematically linked Fair<br />

to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

Good ü<br />

management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated<br />

towards achievement of specific<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds<br />

are never released in time.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Some specific allocation for management<br />

of priority action and some funds released Fair<br />

in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide most resource allocation Good<br />

and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically<br />

applied to decide complete allocation of<br />

resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the<br />

management of the site.<br />

Poor<br />

NGOs make some contribution to<br />

management of the site but opportunities<br />

for collaboration are not systematically<br />

Fair ü<br />

explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

Good<br />

management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically<br />

sought and negotiated for the<br />

management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />

| 370


3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks. Poor ü<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks. Very good<br />

4. Process<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff<br />

in the site.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff,<br />

who are posted in the site.<br />

Fair<br />

A large number of trained officers and<br />

frontline staff are posted in the site.<br />

Good<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff<br />

posted in the site.<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Some linkage between staff performance<br />

management and management objectives,<br />

but not consistently or systematically<br />

Fair<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant Good<br />

management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is<br />

directly linked to achievement of relevant<br />

management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Fair<br />

Systematic public participation in most<br />

aspects of PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public<br />

participation in all important aspects of PA<br />

management.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />

371 |


4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling<br />

complaints.<br />

Poor<br />

Complaints handling system operational<br />

but not responsive to individual issues and Fair<br />

limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds<br />

effectively to most complaints.<br />

Good ü<br />

All complaints systematically logged in<br />

coordinated system and timely response<br />

provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Poor<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA<br />

management.<br />

Fair<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed<br />

by PA management.<br />

Good ü<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent<br />

communities especially women are<br />

addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management<br />

publicly available.<br />

Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general<br />

and has limited relevance to management<br />

accountability and the condition of public<br />

Fair ü<br />

assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides<br />

detailed insight into major management Good<br />

issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely<br />

provided on management and condition of<br />

public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />

| 372


5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds<br />

with relevant PA category and/or threaten Poor ü<br />

PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally<br />

accord with relevant PA category and don't Fair<br />

threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and most enhance Good<br />

PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with<br />

relevant PA category and enhance PA<br />

values.<br />

Very good<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine<br />

reporting of management related trends.<br />

Poor<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken<br />

but neither systematic nor routine.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting<br />

of management related trends undertaken.<br />

Good<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive<br />

reporting of management related trends<br />

undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance<br />

schedule.<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is<br />

the maintenance schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule but funds are<br />

inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for<br />

maintenance schedule and adequate funds<br />

are made available.<br />

Poor<br />

Fair<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />

373 |


6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations declining.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations increasing, most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species<br />

populations either increasing or stable.<br />

Good<br />

Very good<br />

ü<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Poor<br />

Some biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Most biological communities likely to be<br />

able to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Good<br />

All biological communities likely to be able<br />

to sustain native biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but<br />

have enhanced.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated. Good<br />

All threats to the site have been abated. Very good<br />

6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor ü<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />

| 374


6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are<br />

hostile.<br />

Poor ü<br />

Key neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive.<br />

Fair<br />

Most neighbours/communities are<br />

supportive of PA management.<br />

Good<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive<br />

of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or<br />

despite management efforts, deterioration<br />

of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

Poor<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but<br />

deterioration continues.<br />

Fair ü<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is Good<br />

being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management<br />

underway and deterioration of assets is<br />

being significantly redressed.<br />

Very good<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

1. Context 03 10 30 22.5<br />

2. Planning 10 10 100 72.5<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50 25.0<br />

4. Process 05 10 50 27.5<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40 20.0<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60 27.5<br />

Total 33 330 195<br />

Overall Score<br />

59%<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Kerala)<br />

375 |


| 376<br />

SITE


Annexure-I<br />

SITE<br />

Assessment Criteria for Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) of<br />

PA Network in <strong>India</strong><br />

1. Context<br />

1.1 Are the values of the site well documented, assessed and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Values not systematically documented, assessed or monitored. Poor<br />

Values generally identified but not systematically assessed and Fair<br />

monitored.<br />

Most values systematically identified and assessed and<br />

Good<br />

monitored.<br />

All values systematically identified and assessed and<br />

monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

1.2 Are the threats to site values well documented and assessed?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats not systematically documented or assessed.<br />

Poor<br />

Threats generally identified but not systematically assessed. Fair<br />

Most threats systematically identified and assessed.<br />

Good<br />

All threats systematically identified and assessed.<br />

Very good<br />

1.3 Is the site free from human and biotic interference?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

The site has extensive human and biotic interference.<br />

Poor<br />

The site has some human and biotic interference.<br />

Fair<br />

The site has little human and biotic interference.<br />

Good<br />

The site has no human and biotic interference.<br />

Very good<br />

2. Planning<br />

2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the<br />

objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not identified correctly or categorized.<br />

Poor<br />

Site identified correctly but not categorized.<br />

Fair<br />

Site identified correctly but not systematically categorized.<br />

Good<br />

Site identified correctly and systematically categorized with<br />

proper zonation plans.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Annexure-I<br />

377 |


2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan?<br />

SITE<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No relevant Management Plan in place.<br />

Poor<br />

Management Plan exist but not comprehensive.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive Management Plan.<br />

Good<br />

Site has a comprehensive, science based Management Plan<br />

prepared through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No process in place for systematic review and update of<br />

Poor<br />

Management Plan.<br />

Management Plan sometimes updated in adhoc manner.<br />

Fair<br />

Management Plan routinely and systematically updated.<br />

Good<br />

Management Plan routinely, systematically and scientifically<br />

updated through a participatory process.<br />

Very good<br />

2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Sites does not safeguard th e threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Poor<br />

Sites safeguards a few threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Fair<br />

Sites safeguards a large number of threatened biodiversity<br />

Good<br />

values.<br />

Sites safeguards all threatened biodiversity values.<br />

Very good<br />

2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder participation in planning. Poor<br />

Stakeholders participate in some planning.<br />

Fair<br />

Stakeholders participate in most planning processes.<br />

Good<br />

Stakeholders routinely and systematically participate in all<br />

planning processes.<br />

Very good<br />

2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring programmes are in place for Fair<br />

habitat restoration.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are generally well planned and Good<br />

monitored.<br />

Habitat restoration programmes are thoroughly planned and<br />

monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Annexure-I<br />

| 378


2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?<br />

SITE<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Reintroduction programmes are entirely adhoc.<br />

Poor<br />

Limited planning and monitoring programmes are in place for Fair<br />

reintroduction programmes.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are generally well planned and<br />

Good<br />

monitored.<br />

Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly planned and<br />

monitored.<br />

Very good<br />

2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site has no protection strategy.<br />

Poor<br />

Site has an adhoc protection strategy.<br />

Fair<br />

Site has a comprehensive protection strategy but is not very Good<br />

effective.<br />

Site has a comprehensive and very effective protection strategy. Very good<br />

2.9 Has the site been effective in the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Human-wildlife conflicts are rampant.<br />

Poor<br />

Site has been able to mitigate few human-wildlife conflicts. Fair<br />

Site has been able to mitigate many human-wildlife conflicts. Good<br />

Site has been able effective in mitigating all human-wildlife<br />

conflicts.<br />

Very good<br />

2.10 Is the site integrated into a wider ecological network following the principles of the ecosystem<br />

approach?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Site not integrated into a wider network/ landscape.<br />

Poor<br />

Some limited attempts to integrate the site into a network/ Fair<br />

landscape.<br />

Site is generally quite well integrated into a network/ landscape. Good<br />

Site is fully integrated into a wider network/ landscape.<br />

Very good<br />

3. Inputs<br />

3.1 Are personnel well organised and managed with access to adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, personnel explicitly allocated for PA management. Poor<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated for PA management but not Fair<br />

systematically linked to management objectives.<br />

Some personnel explicitly allocated towards achievement of<br />

Good<br />

specific management objectives.<br />

Adequate personnel explicitly allocated towards achievement of<br />

specific management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Annexure-I<br />

379 |


SITE<br />

3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipment, building etc.) well organised and managed with access to<br />

adequate resources?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Few, if any, resources explicitly allocated for PA management. Poor<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated for PA management but not Fair<br />

systematically linked to management objectives.<br />

Some resources explicitly allocated towards achievement of<br />

Good<br />

specific management objectives.<br />

Adequate resources explicitly allocated towards achievement of<br />

specific management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

3.3 Are resources (human and financial) linked to priority actions and are funds released timely?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resource allocation is adhoc and funds are never released in Poor<br />

time.<br />

Some specific allocation for management of priority action and Fair<br />

some funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically applied to decide most Good<br />

resource allocation and generally funds released in time.<br />

Comprehensive formulae systematically applied to decide<br />

complete allocation of resources for management and on-time<br />

release of funds.<br />

Very good<br />

3.4 What level of resources is provided by NGOs?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

NGOs contribute nothing for the management of the site.<br />

Poor<br />

NGOs make some contribution to management of the site but Fair<br />

opportunities for collaboration are not systematically explored.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically sought and negotiated Good<br />

for the management of some site level activities.<br />

NGOs contributions are systematically sought and negotiated<br />

for the management of many site level activities.<br />

Very good<br />

*3.5 Does PA manager considers resources (human and financial) to be sufficient?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Resources insufficient for most tasks.<br />

Poor<br />

Resources sufficient for some tasks.<br />

Fair<br />

Resources sufficient for most tasks.<br />

Good<br />

Resources are in excess for most tasks.<br />

Very good<br />

Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Annexure-I<br />

| 380


4. Process<br />

SITE<br />

4.1 Does the site have trained manpower resources for effective PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Very few trained officers and frontline staff in the site.<br />

Poor<br />

Few trained officers and frontline staff, who are posted in the<br />

Fair<br />

site.<br />

A large number of trained officers and frontline staff are posted Good<br />

in the site.<br />

All trained managers and frontline staff posted in the site .<br />

Very good<br />

4.2 Is PA staff performance management linked to achievement of management objectives?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No linkage between staff performance management and<br />

Poor<br />

management objectives.<br />

Some linkage between staff performance management and<br />

Fair<br />

management objectives, but not consistently or systematically<br />

assessed.<br />

Performance management for most staff is directly linked to<br />

Good<br />

achievement of relevant management objectives.<br />

Performance management of all staff is directly linked to<br />

achievement of relevant management objectives.<br />

Very good<br />

4.3 Is there effective public participation in PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no public participation in PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Opportunistic public participation in some aspects of PA<br />

Fair<br />

management.<br />

Systematic public participation in most aspects of PA<br />

Good<br />

management.<br />

Comprehensive and systematic public participation in all<br />

important aspects of PA management.<br />

Very good<br />

4.4 Is there a responsive system for handling complaints and comments about PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic approach to handling complaints.<br />

Poor<br />

Complaints handling system operational but not responsive to Fair<br />

individual issues and limited follow up provided.<br />

Coordinated system logs and responds effectively to most<br />

Good<br />

complaints.<br />

All complaints systematically logged in coordinated system and<br />

timely response provided with minimal repeat complaints.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Annexure-I<br />

381 |


SITE<br />

4.5 Does PA management addresses the livelihood issues of resource dependent communities<br />

especially women?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No livelihood issues are addressed by PA management.<br />

Poor<br />

Few livelihood issues are addressed by PA management.<br />

Fair<br />

Substantial livelihood issues are addressed by PA management. Good<br />

Livelihood issues of resource dependent communities especially<br />

women are addressed effectively by PA managers.<br />

Very good<br />

5. Output<br />

5.1 Is adequate information on PA management publicly available?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no information on PA management publicly available. Poor<br />

Publicly available information is general and has limited<br />

Fair<br />

relevance to management accountability and the condition of<br />

public assets.<br />

Publicly available information provides detailed insight into<br />

Good<br />

major management issues for most PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Comprehensive reports are routinely provided on management<br />

and condition of public assets in all PAs or groups of PAs.<br />

Very good<br />

5.2 Are visitor services (tourism and interpretation) and facilities appropriate for the relevant protected<br />

area category?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Visitor services and facilities are at odds with relevant PA<br />

Poor<br />

category and/or threaten PA values.<br />

Visitor services and facilities generally accord with relevant PA Fair<br />

category and don't threaten PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with relevant PA<br />

Good<br />

category and most enhance PA values.<br />

All visitor services and facilities accord with relevant PA<br />

category and enhance PA values.<br />

Very good<br />

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no systematic evaluation or routine reporting of<br />

Poor<br />

management related trends.<br />

Some evaluation and reporting undertaken but neither<br />

Fair<br />

systematic nor routine.<br />

Systematic evaluation and routine reporting of management<br />

Good<br />

related trends undertaken.<br />

Systematic evaluation and comprehensive reporting of<br />

management related trends undertaken.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Annexure-I<br />

| 382


SITE<br />

5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

No systematic inventory or maintenance schedule.<br />

Poor<br />

Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is the maintenance<br />

Fair<br />

schedule.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for maintenance<br />

Good<br />

schedule but funds are inadequately made available.<br />

Systematic inventory provides the basis for maintenance<br />

schedule and adequate funds are made available.<br />

Very good<br />

6. Outcomes<br />

6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threatened/ endangered species populations declining.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threatened/ endangered species populations increasing, Fair<br />

most others stable.<br />

Most threatened/ endangered species populations increasing, Good<br />

most others stable.<br />

All threatened/ endangered species populations either increasing<br />

or stable.<br />

Very good<br />

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Biological communities unlikely to be able to sustain native<br />

Poor<br />

biodiversity.<br />

Some biological communities likely to be able to sustain native Fair<br />

biodiversity.<br />

Most biological communities likely to be able to sustain native Good<br />

biodiversity.<br />

All biological communities likely to be able to sustain native<br />

biodiversity.<br />

Very good<br />

6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Threats to the site have not abated but have enhanced.<br />

Poor<br />

Some threats to the site have been abated.<br />

Fair<br />

Most threats to the site have been abated.<br />

Good<br />

All threats to the site have been abated.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Annexure-I<br />

383 |


6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded?<br />

SITE<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Expectations of visitors generally not met.<br />

Poor<br />

Expectations of many visitors are met.<br />

Fair<br />

Expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Good<br />

Good expectations of most visitors are met.<br />

Very good<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Neighbours/adjacent communities are hostile.<br />

Poor<br />

Key neighbours/communities are supportive.<br />

Fair<br />

Most neighbours/communities are supportive of PA<br />

Good<br />

management.<br />

All neighbours and communities supportive of PA management. Very good<br />

6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected?<br />

Assessment criteria<br />

Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks<br />

Little or no management undertaken, or despite management<br />

Poor<br />

efforts, deterioration of cultural heritage assets continues, or<br />

values are unknown.<br />

Some management activity, but deterioration continues.<br />

Fair<br />

Planned approach to management underway and deterioration Good<br />

of assets is being redressed.<br />

Planned approach to management underway and deterioration<br />

of assets is being significantly redressed.<br />

Very good<br />

MEE Score Card<br />

Framework<br />

Element<br />

Number<br />

Framework<br />

Element Name<br />

Number of<br />

Questions<br />

(a)<br />

Maximum<br />

Mark per<br />

question (b)<br />

Total<br />

(a x b)<br />

1. Context 03 10 30<br />

2. Planning 10 10 100<br />

3. Inputs 05 10 50<br />

4. Process 05 10 50<br />

5. Outputs 04 10 40<br />

6. Outcomes 06 10 60<br />

Total 33 330<br />

Marks<br />

obtained for<br />

the Element<br />

Overall Score<br />

*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10<br />

Annexure-I<br />

| 384

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!