Full page fax print - India Environment Portal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. Planning 2.1 Is the site properly identified (NP/WLS) and categorized (in terms of zonation) to achieve the objectives? Assessment criteria Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks Site not identified correctly or categorized. Poor Site identified correctly but not Fair categorized. The Sanctuary does not have any zonation, but 5 Site identified correctly but not Good ü km of buffer zone is there around the sanctuary. systematically categorized. Site identified correctly and systematically categorized with proper zonation plans. Very good 2.2 Does the site have a comprehensive Management Plan? Assessment criteria Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks No relevant Management Plan in place. Poor Management Plan exist but not Fair ü comprehensive. Management plan covers the period 2000-01 to Site has a comprehensive Management Good 2009-10 and approved. It is however not Plan. comprehensive. Site has a comprehensive, science based Management Plan prepared through a Very good participatory process. 2.3 Is the Management Plan routinely and systematically updated? Assessment criteria Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks No process in place for systematic review and update of Management Plan. Poor Management Plan sometimes updated in Fair adhoc manner. The present Management Plan is operational and Management Plan routinely and Good ü would be revised after expiry. systematically updated. Management Plan routinely, systematically and scientifically updated Very good through a participatory process. 2.4 Does the site safeguards the threatened biodiversity values? Assessment criteria Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks Sites does not safeguard the threatened biodiversity values. Poor Sites safeguards a few threatened Fair ü biodiversity values. Most of the animal spp. are on decline, but the Sites safeguards a large number of plan spp. are largely safeguarded. Good threatened biodiversity values. Sites safeguards all threatened biodiversity values. Very good *Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10 Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh) 355 |
2.5 Are stakeholders given an opportunity to participate in planning? Assessment criteria Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks Little, if any opportunity for stakeholder participation in planning. Poor Stakeholders participate in some planning. Fair ü Stakeholders participation is limited to some Stakeholders participate in most planning Good areas and only on some aspects. processes. Stakeholders routinely and systematically participate in all planning processes. Very good 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 Fair ü Limited planning at monitoring for habitat restoration. restoration programme. Habitat restoration programmes are Good 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 entirely adhoc. Poor ü Limited planning and monitoring programmes are in place for reintroduction Fair programmes. No re-introduction programme is in place. Reintroduction programmes are generally well planned and monitored. Good Reintroduction programmes are thoroughly planned and monitored. Very good 2.8 Does the site has an effective protection strategy? Assessment criteria Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks Site has no protection strategy. Poor Site has an adhoc protection strategy. Fair ü Protection strategy is general in nature and Site has a comprehensive protection Good limited due less staff, non-availability of arms and strategy but is not very effective. communications. Site has a comprehensive and very Very good effective protection strategy. *Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10 Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chhattisgarh) | 356
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:
Page 130 and 131:
2.8 Does the site have an effective
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
11. Kishtwar National Park (J&K) Ki
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
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:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
13. Madhav National Park (MP) Madha
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
14. Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary (W
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
15. Mahatma Gandhi National Park (A
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
16. Mahauadar Wildlife Sanctuary (J
Page 202 and 203:
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:
Page 212 and 213:
5.4 Is there a systematic maintenan
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
17. Mudumalai National Park (Tamil
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
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:
Page 250 and 251:
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:
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: 2.9 Has the site been effective in
Page 322 and 323: 3.5 Does PA manager considers resou
Page 324 and 325: 5.2 Are visitor services (tourism a
Page 326 and 327: 6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent com
Page 328 and 329: 26. Sohelwa Wildlife Sanctuary (Utt
Page 330 and 331: 2. Planning 2.1 Is the site properl
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: 2.8 Does the site has an effective
Page 348 and 349: 3.4 What level of resources is prov
Page 350 and 351: 5. Output 5.1 Is adequate informati
Page 352 and 353: 6. Outcomes 6.1 Are threatened/ end
Page 354 and 355: MEE Score Card Framework Element Nu
Page 356 and 357: 28. Sunebeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Or
Page 368 and 369: 29. Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary (Chha
Page 372 and 373: 2.9 Has the site been effective in
Page 380 and 381: 30. Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Ker
Page 392 and 393: Annexure-I SITE Assessment Criteria
Page 394 and 395: 2.7 Are reintroduction programmes s
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?