Full page fax print - India Environment Portal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5.3 Are management related trends systematically evaluated and routinely reported? Assessment criteria Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks Little or no systematic evaluation or routine There was intensive evaluation during World Poor reporting of management related trends. Bank aided COB project and reporting system Some evaluation and reporting undertaken during 2 years after the project was also Fair but neither systematic nor routine. regular. The present evaluation will be first of Systematic evaluation and routine reporting its kind based on IUCN guidelines. Good ü of management related trends undertaken. Systematic evaluation and comprehensive reporting of management related trends Very good undertaken. 5.4 Is there a systematic maintenance schedule and funds in place for management of infrastructure/assets? Assessment criteria Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks No systematic inventory or maintenance schedule. Inventory maintenance is adhoc and so is the maintenance schedule. Systematic inventory provides the basis for maintenance schedule but funds are inadequately made available. Systematic inventory provides the basis for maintenance schedule and adequate funds are made available. Poor Fair Good Very good ü The maintenance schedule is as per departmental norms with adequate funding from River Valley Projects. There should now not be any difficulty in maintaining the infrastructures. 6. Outcomes 6.1 Are threatened/ endangered species populations stable or increasing? Assessment criteria Condition Category* (Tick ü) Remarks Threatened/ endangered species populations declining. Some threatened/ endangered species populations increasing, most others stable. Most threatened/ endangered species populations increasing, most others stable. All threatened/ endangered species populations either increasing or stable. Poor Fair Good Very good ü Detailed census/estimation of important species of flora and fauna was done by researchers and field staff during FREE Project which is being updated on annual basis. Baseline survey of galiforms has also been done. The population of threatened/endangered species are stable. There may be marginal increase in some species after strict protection. *Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10 Great Himalayan National Park (HP) 59 |
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 Census of this level will need more scientific Poor to sustain native biodiversity. inputs but looking at the flora, the biological Some biological communities likely to be communities in most of the areas are Fair ü able to sustain native biodiversity. supportive of native biodiversity. Most biological communities likely to be able to sustain native biodiversity. Good 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 Threats have been reduced to a Poor have enhanced. considerable extent after public participation Some threats to the site have been abated. Fair and education and purchase of rights in NP. Most threats to the site have been abated. Good ü It will take sometime for the threats to be All threats to the site have been abated. abated provided efforts at present level are Very good continued with the same zeal. 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 Due to the geographical and climatic Expectations of many visitors are met. Fair conditions only hardcore nature lovers, Expectations of most visitors are met. Good ü trekkers, birdwatchers and cultural visitors Good expectations of most visitors are met. go to the PAs most of their expectations Very good are met. 6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent communities supportive of PA management? Assessment criteria Condition Category (Tick ü) Remarks Neighbours/adjacent communities are With continued efforts in ecodevelopment, Poor hostile. involvement of women and community Key neighbours/communities are base organizations, the neighbouring Fair supportive. communities are by and large supportive. Most neighbours/communities are The scenario before 5-6 years was quite Good ü supportive of PA management. opposite. All neighbours and communities Very good supportive of PA management. *Score: Poor: 2.5; Fair: 5; Good: 7.5; Very Good: 10 Great Himalayan National Park (HP) | 60
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: 2. Planning 2.1 Is the site properl
Page 32 and 33: 2.7 Are reintroduction programmes s
Page 34 and 35: 3.3 Are resources (human and financ
Page 40 and 41: 3. Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary (Karn
Page 44 and 45: 2.7 Are reintroduction programmes s
Page 46 and 47: 3.3 Are resources (human and financ
Page 52 and 53: 4. Govind Pashu Vihar (Uttarakhand)
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 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 76 and 77: 6.6 Are cultural heritage assets pr
Page 78 and 79: 6. Gulf of Mannar National Park (Ta
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 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 110 and 111: 5.2 Are visitor services (tourism a
Page 112 and 113: 6.5 Are neighbours and adjacent com
Page 114 and 115: 9. Keoladeo National Park (Rajastha
Page 122 and 123: 5. Output 5.1 Is adequate informati
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:
3.5 Does PA manager considers resou
Page 134 and 135:
5. Output 5.1 Is adequate informati
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
11. Kishtwar National Park (J&K) Ki
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
2.8 Does the site has an effective
Page 144 and 145:
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 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
3.4 What level of resources is prov
Page 172 and 173:
4.5 Does PA management addresses th
Page 174 and 175:
6.2 Are biological communities at a
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:
2.9 Has the site been effective in
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:
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:
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:
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:
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?