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
Flora! values better safe guarded than potential
Poor
biodiversity values.
values of wild mammalian browsers and grazers,
Sites safeguards a few threatened
scrub land frugivorous birds, reptiles, etc.
Fair ü
biodiversity values.
Sites safeguards a large number of
threatened biodiversity values.
Good
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
There is no institutional mechanism for such
Poor ü
participation in planning.
consultations , even statutory requirement of
Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair
having Hon. Warden and Advisory committee [
Stakeholders participate in most planning
Section 33- B] not in place.
Good
processes.
Stakeholders routinely and systematically
Very good
participate in all planning processes.
2.6 Are habitat restoration programmes systematically planned and monitored?
Assessment criteria
Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks
Habitat restoration programmes are
entirely adhoc.
Poor
Limited planning and monitoring
programmes are in place for habitat
restoration.
Fair ü
Habitat restoration programmes are
generally well planned and monitored.
Habitat restoration programmes are
thoroughly planned and monitored.
Good
Very good
Water conservation measures are note worthy
and have given excellent results ; Lantana
invasion control measures in place but attention
need also be focused on Acacia Senegal
proliferation. Soil Conservation need priority .
How ever, basic cause of habitat damage need
be controlled through relocation of Maldharies at
least on periphery is pre requisite.
*Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10
Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat)
| 4