Full page fax print - India Environment Portal

2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values?
Assessment criteria
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks
Sites does not safeguard the threatened
Initially ,Siberian crane was central to
Poor
biodiversity values.
conservation values but there are other equally
Sites safeguards a few threatened
important values and overall planning addresses
Fair
biodiversity values.
these needs.
Sites safeguards a large number of
threatened biodiversity values.
Good ü
Sites safeguards all threatened
biodiversity values.
Very good
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning?
Assessment criteria
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks
Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder
Being N.P. scope of stake holders in traditional
Poor
participation in planning.
way is limited ;Consultations within now available
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair
frame work( Advisory committee under Sec 33 B,
Stakeholders participate in most planning
Amended Wild life [Protection] Act , need be
Good ü
processes.
availed. Ear marking funds from MP.’s quota is
Stakeholders routinely and systematically
an indication of elected representatives interest in
participate in all planning processes.
park management. Contribution of WWF
Very good
/swarovasky in establishment of Nature
interpretation center is a welcome feature.
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?
Assessment criteria
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks
Habitat restoration programmes are
Quantity and time of water release , into the Park
Poor
entirely adhoc.
, in itself is a major tool for maintaining ecological
Limited planning and monitoring
programmes are in place for habitat
Fair
status; controlled forest fire / grazing, removal of
grass /inflammable material to reduce fire hazard
restoration.
;eradication of invasive aquatic and terrestrial
Habitat restoration programmes are
weeds have been given importance due to it
Good ü
generally well planned and monitored.
Habitat restoration programmes are
thoroughly planned and monitored.
Very good
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes systematically planned and monitored?
Assessment criteria
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks
Reintroduction programmes are
For biological control on Feral cattle /dogs it is
Poor
entirely adhoc.
necessary to re introduce Leopard if sustainable.
Limited planning and monitoring
Park is to small to hold viable Tiger population .
Re introduction of Siberian crane is a
programmes are in place for
Fair
multifaceted issue and need inter national co
reintroduction programmes.
operation too. Present planning process do not
Reintroduction programmes are
Good ü address these issues in depth.
generally well planned and monitored.
Reintroduction programmes are
thoroughly planned and monitored.
Very good
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10
Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan)
| 102