Full page fax print - India Environment Portal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6.2 Are biological communities at a mix of ages and spacings that will support native biodiversity? Assessment criteria Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks Biological communities unlikely to be able There is long conservation history and thus Poor to sustain native biodiversity. good forest cover and presence of mature Some biological communities likely to be tree crop. Shifting of villages will result in Fair able to sustain native biodiversity. meadows and young crop. Most biological communities likely to be able to sustain native biodiversity. Good ü All biological communities likely to be able to sustain native biodiversity. Very good 6.3 Have the threats to the site being abated/ minimized? Assessment criteria Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks Threats to the site have not abated but Some threats are abated .Recommend study Poor have enhanced. of SGNP, Mumbai as case study on Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair ü abatement of threats due to urbanization. Most threats to the site have been abated. Good All threats to the site have been abated. Very good 6.4 Are the expectations of visitors generally met or exceeded? Assessment criteria Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks Expectations of visitors generally not met. Poor As pointed out in paraSol above visitors Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair ü partly satisfied, there i's need to sensitize Expectations of most visitors are met. Good and educate tourists through concerted Good expectations of most visitors are met. Very good efforts 6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management? Assessment criteria Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks Neighbours/adjacent communities are Scope for improvement. Poor hostile. Key neighbours/communities are supportive. Fair ü Most neighbours/communities are supportive of PA management. Good All neighbours and communities supportive of PA management. Very good *Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10 Madhav National Park (MP) 159 |
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets protected? Assessment criteria Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks Little or no management undertaken, or despite management efforts, deterioration of cultural heritage assets continues, or values are unknown. Some management activity, but deterioration continues. Planned approach to management underway and deterioration of assets is being redressed. Planned approach to management underway and deterioration of assets is being significantly redressed. Poor Fair Good Very good ü Structures like old Baradari, Georges castle, watch towers have good potentials. MEE Score Card Framework Element Number Framework Element Name Number of Questions (a) Maximum Mark per question (b) Total (a x b) Marks obtained for the Element 1. Context 03 10 30 16 2. Planning 9 10 100 62 3. Inputs 05 10 50 26 4. Process 05 10 50 26 5. Outputs 04 10 40 22 6. Outcomes 06 10 60 33 Total 32 330 185 Overall Score 56% *Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10 Madhav National Park (MP) | 160
Page 2 and 3:
Management Effectiveness Evaluation
Page 4 and 5:
Results at a Glance S. No. 1. 2. 3.
Page 6 and 7:
Results at a Glance iii |
Page 8 and 9:
Results at a Glance v |
Page 10 and 11:
Results at a Glance vii |
Page 12 and 13:
Results at a Glance ix |
Page 14 and 15:
Results at a Glance xi |
Page 16 and 17:
1. Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujara
Page 18 and 19:
2. Planning 2.1 Is the site properl
Page 20 and 21:
2.7 Are reintroduction programmes s
Page 22 and 23:
3.3 Are resources (human and financ
Page 24 and 25:
4.4 Is there a responsive system fo
Page 26 and 27:
6. Outcomes 6.1 Are threatened/ end
Page 28 and 29:
2. Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
3. Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karn
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
4. Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
2.9 Has the site been effective in
Page 58 and 59:
3.4 What level of resources is prov
Page 60 and 61:
4.5 Does PA management addresses th
Page 62 and 63:
6.2 Are biological communities at a
Page 64 and 65:
5. Great Himalayan National Park (H
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
2.6 Are habitat restoration program
Page 70 and 71:
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipme
Page 72 and 73:
4.2 Is PA staff performance managem
Page 74 and 75:
5.3 Are management related trends s
Page 76 and 77:
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets pr
Page 78 and 79:
6. Gulf of Mannar National Park (Ta
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
2.8 Does the site has an effective
Page 84 and 85:
3.5 Does PA manager considers resou
Page 86 and 87:
5. Output 5.1 Is adequate informati
Page 88 and 89:
6.4 Are the expectations of visitor
Page 90 and 91:
7. Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary (We
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
5.2 Are visitor services (tourism a
Page 100 and 101:
6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent com
Page 102 and 103:
8. Keibul Lamjao National Park (Man
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
9. Keoladeo National Park (Rajastha
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125: 6.3 Have the threats to the site be
Page 126 and 127: 10. Khangchendzonga National Park (
Page 128 and 129: 2. Planning 2.1 Is the site properl
Page 130 and 131: 2.8 Does the site have an effective
Page 132 and 133: 3.5 Does PA manager considers resou
Page 134 and 135: 5. Output 5.1 Is adequate informati
Page 138 and 139: 11. Kishtwar National Park (J&K) Ki
Page 142 and 143: 2.8 Does the site has an effective
Page 144 and 145: 3.3 Are resources (human and financ
Page 146 and 147: 4.4 Is there a responsive system fo
Page 148 and 149: 6. Outcomes 6.1 Are threatened/ end
Page 150 and 151: MEE Score Card Framework Element Nu
Page 152 and 153: 12. Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary
Page 154 and 155: 2.2 Does the site have a comprehens
Page 156 and 157: 2.10 Is the site integrated into a
Page 158 and 159: 4. Process 4.1 Does the site have t
Page 160 and 161: 5.2 Are visitor services (tourism a
Page 162 and 163: 6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent com
Page 164 and 165: 13. Madhav National Park (MP) Madha
Page 168 and 169: 2.7 Are reintroduction programmes s
Page 170 and 171: 3.4 What level of resources is prov
Page 172 and 173: 4.5 Does PA management addresses th
Page 176 and 177: 14. Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (W
Page 180 and 181: 2.7 Are reintroduction programmes s
Page 182 and 183: 3.4 What level of resources is prov
Page 184 and 185: 5. Output 5.1 Is adequate informati
Page 188 and 189: 15. Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A
Page 192 and 193: 2.9 Has the site been effective in
Page 196 and 197: 5.2 Are visitor services (tourism a
Page 200 and 201: 16. Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (J
Page 204 and 205: 2.7 Are reintroduction programmers
Page 206 and 207: 3.2 Are resources ( Vehicle, equipm
Page 208 and 209: 4. Process 4.1 Does the site have t
Page 210 and 211: 4.5 Does PA management addresses th
Page 212 and 213: 5.4 Is there a systematic maintenan
Page 216 and 217: 17. Mudumalai National Park (Tamil
Page 220 and 221: 2.8 Does the site has an effective
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
18. National Chambal Wildlife Sanct
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
19. Navegaon National Park (Maharas
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
4.5 Does PA management addresses th
Page 250 and 251:
6.2 Are biological communities at a
Page 252 and 253:
20. Nongkhyllem National Park (Megh
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
21. Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary (A
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
2.8 Does the site have an effective
Page 270 and 271:
3.5 Does PA manager consider resour
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
22. Pobitora Sanctuary (Assam) Pobi
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
6.3 Have the threats to the site be
Page 288 and 289:
23. Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Ma
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
24. Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary (
Page 302 and 303:
1.4 Is there any human settlement w
Page 304 and 305:
2.6 Is there any control mechanism
Page 306 and 307:
2.13(2.9) Has the site been effecti
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
MEE Score Card Framework Element Nu
Page 316 and 317:
25. Sessa Orchid Wildlife Sanctuary
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
26. Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Utt
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
2.6 Are habitat restoration program
Page 334 and 335:
3.2 Are resources (vehicle, equipme
Page 336 and 337:
4.2 Is PA staff performance managem
Page 338 and 339:
5.3 Are management related trends s
Page 340 and 341:
6.6 Are cultural heritage assets pr
Page 342 and 343:
27. Sultanpur National Park (Haryan
Page 344 and 345:
1.3 Is the site free from human and
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
MEE Score Card Framework Element Nu
Page 356 and 357:
28. Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Or
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
29. Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chha
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
30. Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Ker
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Annexure-I SITE Assessment Criteria
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
4. Process SITE 4.1 Does the site h
Page 398 and 399:
SITE 5.4 Is there a systematic main
show all

Full page fax print - India Environment Portal

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

Delete template?

Save as template?