Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Theoretical ecology wikipedia , lookup
Source–sink dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Pleistocene Park wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Operation Wallacea wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Management Effectiveness Evaluation in India and Nepal V.B. Mathur, B.C.Chowdhury, S.Singsit, N.K.Vasu, KCA Arun Prasad, Shivraj Bhatta [email protected] : tcejorP egatireH ruO gnicnahnE NCUI – OCSENU set iS egatireH dlroW larutaN ni sseccuS rof gniganaM dna gnirotinoM : setiS naisA htuoS PN nawtihC layoR PN agnarizaK kraP lanoitaN oedaloeK • kraP lanoitaN agnarizaK • kraP lanoitaN nawtihC layoR • PN oedaloeK UNESCO – IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project : Monitoring and Managing for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites Kaziranga National Park WHS 1985 Keoladeo National Park WHS 1985 Royal Chitwan National Park WHS 1984 UNESCO – IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project : Monitoring and Managing for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites Kaziranga National Park Satellite image of Kaziranga National Park and adjoining areas Biodiversity Values Focal Management Targets Kaziranga NP Focal Management Targets World Heritage Values Additional Attributes Information on status One-horned Indian Rhinoceros World’s largest population A ‘keystone’ species of the wet grassland habitat in mainly the Brahmaputra river flood plains. Very Good Wild Buffalo, Eastern Swamp Deer World’s largest population Two obligate species mainly confined to the site. Very Good Asian Elephant, Large population Approximately 30% of north east Indian population confined to the site Very Good Tiger Highest density in any protected area The site is under consideration to be given a project tiger site Raptors, Turtles, High diversity Significant breeding habitat of 13 species of turtle and several species of Raptors Good Resident and migratory waterfowl High density Already identified as IBA site Good River floodplains and wetlands Large diversity of aquatic fauna, Important Bird Area (IBA), important waterfowl flyway and wintering ground Breeding habitat for a large number of fish species and Gangetic river Dolphins (30% of the Indian river dolphin population) Good more… Stresses & Threats Threats to World Heritage Values Current Threats Key threat-related factor to be assessed Focal Management Target affected Kaziranga NP Attributes for consideration in status measurement STRESS: Poaching SOURCE: (i) High demand in international market. (ii) Poor economic condition of local communities One horned Indian Rhinoceros Protection measures, population trends and rate of mortality STRESS: Habitat degradation SOURCE: (i) Siltation caused by deforestation in catchments areas (ii) Unmonitored practice of grassland management using fire as a tool. (iii) Exotic weed invasion (iv) Livestock grazing in fringe areas Grassland and wetland flora and fauna Loss of resources (e.g. food, shelter) as well as decimation of slow moving non target species due to intense fire requires monitoring STRESS: Habitat fragmentation SOURCES: National Highway, surrounding land use pattern Terrestrial vertebratesparticularly migratory fauna Interferes in animal movement particularly during floods STRESS: Habitat loss SOURCE: Erosion due to change in river courses and breach in embankments All species and habitats Possible change in riverfront ecosystem and decline in Park area. STRESS: Pollution and contamination Aquatic and grassland & wetland species and habitat Harmful effects on fishes, birds, plants and others as well as enhanced eutrophication of wetlands. SOURCE: (i) Use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers in the tea gardens near the Park ….more Stakeholder Engagement & Partners in Management Factor Understanding Stakeholders Surrounding Villagers Tourism Industry Govt. Departments (Excluding Tourism Department) Media Economic dependency Moderate High Low Low Negative Impacts Moderate Low Low Low Positive Impacts Moderate High Low Moderate Willingness to engage High High Moderate Moderate Political / Social Influence Low Moderate High Moderate Not organized Partly organized Not organized Partly organized at individual levels Tourist guides, small shops and ancillary to tourism industry such as home stay provisions and transport Promotion of tourism, publicity, generation of revenue Infrastructure development Education and awareness, publicity What is the level of engagement of the stakeholder? Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement (Very good, Good, Fair, Poor) Low Good Fair Fair Organization of stakeholders Assessment of Stakeholder Engagement Summary What opportunities do stakeholders have to contribute to management? Management Process Assessment Main Issues Legal status Criteria Maximum score Current score Effectiveness (percentage) 1. Legislation 3 2 67% 2. Law enforcement 3 1.5 50% Information availability and Planning ability 3. Planning system 3 2 67% 4. Ecosystem inventory 3 2 67% Ecosystem management and Vulnerability control 5. Ecosystem management a. Monitoring & Evaluation b. Research c. Restoration 3 2 67% 6. Control over access/use of KNP 3 1.5 50% 7. Facility development 3 1.5 50% 8. Maintenance 3 1.5 50% 9. Staffing and staff training 3 1.5 50% 10. Personnel management 3 1.5 50% 11. Communication 3 1.5 50% 12. Financial sustainability 3 1.5 50% 13. Budget control and record keeping 3 1.5 50% 14. Communication with stakeholders / partners 3 1.5 50% 15. Communication with neighbors 3 1.5 50% 16. Benefits to surrounding community 3 1.5 50% 17. Control over visitor access 3 2 67% 18. Visitor opportunities 3 2 67% 19. Visitor facilities 3 1.5 50% Management systems Finance and budgets Partnership Visitors and nature-conservation tourism Biodiversity Health Assessment Focal Management Target Size Rating Condition Rating Landscape Overall Biodiversity Health Rating Rhinoceros Good Good Fair Good Wild-Buffalo Fair Good Fair Fair Swamp-Deer Fair Fair Fair Fair Very Good Good Fair Good Bengal Florican Fair Fair Fair Fair Aquatic Habitats Good Good Good Good Very Good Good Good Good Tiger Grassland The Path Ahead Plug in the gaps identified through WCPA management effectiveness evaluation framework Implement the recommendations made in the initial management effectiveness evaluation Seek funding support for major management interventions Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur (India) Design Assessment Design aspect Strengths of reserve design in relation to this aspect Weaknesses of reserve design in relation to this aspect Key areas Mosaic of habitats inside the NP helps in supporting high species diversity. Refuge area/ satellite key resource are not in the WH site design. Size Small area has unique mosaic of habitats whose boundary is clearly defined. Absence of buffer zone around the park makes PA vulnerable to all forms of biotic pressures. External interactions Presence of mosaic of habitat helps in limiting and controlling direct external interaction. Regulations & governance by allied departments helps in maintaining refuge areas. Adjacent land use particularly subsistence agriculture, leads to increased dependency on the park resources mainly water and fodder often causing conflict. Connectivity Seeds of primary and secondary producers flow in with water inflow from watershed, particularly fish fry that sustain the heronry. Seeds of certain weeds enter the same way. A. Ecological integrity B. Community well-being Key areas Direct economic benefits through tourism, water and fodder availability. There are no legal provisions for physical utilization of resources inside a NP. Size Small size provides easy accessibility for park managers to the villagers. Occasionally crop damage by wild herbivores is high. Small size limits resource availability. External interactions Providing opportunities for multi cultural exchange due to influx of large number of foreign tourist. Loss of cultural values. Legal status Stringent legal provisions provide high integrity to the park. No resources sharing can be legally permitted within the NP. Legal status Legal status is clear which helps in better management. No resource sharing possible. Access points Controlled few access points. The large interface between PA & villages facilitates easy access at times by breaching of boundary wall. Neighbours The park has a well defined demarcation of boundary through a 5’ high stone masonry wall. Deliberate breach of wall at many places to facilitate the entry of livestock defeats the purpose. C. Management factors Assessment of Current Management Plan Implementation Criteria habitat management Score action wise Max score Current score % Veg. Management (9 actions) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 4, NR, NR, 4, 0, 3, NR, NR, NR 20 11 55% Water management (10 actions) NA, 4, 4, 4, 0, NR, NR, 4, 4, 4 28 24 85.68% Protection General (14 actions) Fire protection (6 actions) 3, 2, 0, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 0, 3, 3, 0, 0 4, 0, NR, NR, NR, 3 56 33 58.74% Tourism facilities (22 actions) NR, 4, NR, 0, NA, NR, NR, NR, 0, 0, 4, 4, 4, 3 0, NA, 0, NA, NA, 3, 4, 2 52 28 69.3% Ecodevelopment (14 action) 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 56 6 10.71% Monitoring & Research (8 actions) 0, 0, 4, 0, 2, 0, 0 32 6 18.75% Biodiversity Health Assessment Focal Management Target Size rating Condition rating Landscape context rating Overall Biodiversity Health Rating Heronry Poor Good Poor Poor Management of wetland & ecological succession Poor Fair Poor Poor Monitoring Plan Template Focal Management Target Heronry Terrestrial habitats Indicator to be Measured Key Factor / Biodiversity Health Category Informed Methods to be Employed Frequency Timing Who will Measure Cost Funding Source No. of species Species abundance Direct count Monthly count from July through October Any time of day Park staff & volunteers Included in administrative cost State / Central Government Nesting success Annual recruitment -do- -do- Meteorologic al data Conditions suitable for nesting Standard methodology Everyday Park administration & Researchers -do- -do- Abundance of trees -do Ocular observation for abundance of mounds Once a year Any time in July Park staff -do- -do- Extent of wetland area Extent & stage of succession Ocular estimation of vegetation Once a year Draw down phase Park staff -do- -do- Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal Focal Management Targets Information on status Focal Management Targets World Heritage Values Additional Attributes Maintenance of natural ecosystems of RCNP The biological richness of the park is outstanding with 8 ecosystem types, which include 7 forest types, 6 grassland types, 5 wetland and 3 main river system habitats. Only viable corridor linking tropical to temperate ecosystems. Very Good Management of critical and viable habitat for rare and endangered species The park harbors the rare tree fern, Cycas, screw pine and many critical and viable habitats for rare and endangered species. Links Parsa WLR, Balmiki tiger Reserve (India) providing biggest viable habitat for tiger. One of the Global 200 eco-region site. Very Good Rare and endangered species conservation RCNP harbors second largest population of Asiatic Rhino (544), Tiger (more than 120) with 60 breeding individuals, Gaur (above 200), Sloth Bear (above 200), viable population of Gharial and many others endangered mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Provide breeding habitat for 526 species including endangered migratory birds, other mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects including more than 156 species of butterflies. Successful captive breeding site for endangered wildlife like Gharial, Mugger, Turtle, Elephant etc. Very Good Biodiversity Values More…… Stresses & Threats Threats to World Heritage Values Key threat-related factor to be assessed Focal Management Target affected Attributes for consideration in status measurement Current threats Stress: Alternation of habitat due to soil erosion and flood All FMT Annual measure of selected habitats Source: Improper management of the upper catchments of Rapti and Narayani rivers: fragile geo-morphology. Stress: Reduction in habitat availability due to proliferation of invasive species Management of upper catchments area. FMT 1 Source: Change in microclimatic condition, organic matter in flow with water Stress: Contamination of water bodies Extent of area infested with weed FMT 1 Source: Industrial pollution, intensive agriculture using organic chemicals Stress: Decrease in wildlife population of key species Source: Livestock and crop depredation Water quality monitoring Census of aquatic fauna Monitoring of industrial effluents FMT 1, 2 Source: Wildlife poaching Stress: Rising antagonism of local communities towards park Habitat loss Change in species composition Loss of endemic taxa Census of key species Monitoring of offences Official records and publication FMT 3 Amount of compensation Compensation process Regular monitoring More….. Stakeholder Engagement & Partners in Management Focal Management Target / Management Objective Local people Local hoteliers Tourist Nature guides NGOs Scientific Research Organizations Govt. Organizations RNA Overall Stakeholders Engagement for Target/ Objective Biodiversity Values Fair Poor Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Other Natural Values Fair X X X Good Good Good Good Good Cultural/Social Values Good Good Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good Design Assessment Design aspect Strengths of reserve design in relation to this aspect Weaknesses of reserve design in relation to this aspect A. Ecological integrity Key areas Outstanding biological richness supporting 8 ecosystems and different species. Size In addition to 932 sq. km. core zone, 750 sq. km of has been added as buffer zone. External interactions Parsa WL in the east and Balmiki Tiger Reserve in the south provides additional habitat. Connectivity The park includes inner Terai, Churia, Terai, which are connected to Mahabharat ranges through various corridors. B. Community well-being Key areas Direct benefit by sharing 50% of park revenue, providing livelihood essentials (thatch grass) to local people. Size 750 sq. km. buffer zone through community forestry provides the opportunity to meet the demand of NR to local people. It ultimately reduces pressure to park. The BZ forests also provide additional habitat for wildlife. Requires lot of financial and human resources. External interactions Enhances the cross-cultural exchange, which supports different economic, and management skill enhancement opportunities. Increased inflation causing difficulty for local people. Legal status Strong Acts and Regulations with efficient implementation mechanism. More….. Lessons Learnt from Project Implementation in South Asia WCPA Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) Framework requires a comprehensive understanding for successful implementation WCPA MEE Framework requires appropriate adjustments to suit the varying site attributes Outcomes Assessment Process comprising Biodiversity Health Assessment and Threat Assessment requires modification and harmonization with other similar assessment tools in use THANKS