UNESCO- IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project€¦ · UNESCO- IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project:...

89
UNESCO- IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project: Monitoring and Managing for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites Final Management Effectiveness Evaluation Report Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India November 2007

Transcript of UNESCO- IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project€¦ · UNESCO- IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project:...

UNESCO- IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project: Monitoring and Managing for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites

Final Management Effectiveness Evaluation Report Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India

November 2007

Table of Content

Project Background 1 How the Evaluation was carried out 2 The Project Workbook and Tool Kits 3

Section 1: Introduction 4-7

Section 2: Context and Planning Assessment 8-36 Tool 1: Identifying Site Values and Management Objectives 11 Tool 2: Identifying Threats 14 Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholder/Partners 28 Tool 4: Review of National Context 35 Section 3: Planning 37-48 Tool 5: Assessment of Management Planning 37 Tool 6: Design Assessment 44 Section 4: Inputs and Process Assessment 49-51 Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs 49 Section 5: Assessment of Management Process 52-64 Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes 52 Section 6: Outputs 65-69 Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation 66 Tool 10: Assessment of Work/Site Output Indicators 67 Section 7: Outcomes 70-78 Tool 11: Assessing the Outcomes of Management – Ecological Integrity 70 Tool 12: Assessing the Outcomes of Management – Achievement of Principal Objectives 75

List of Boxes Box 1: Kaziranga National Park ~ 100 Years of Success Story 5 Box 2: IUCN-WCPA framework for Management Effectiveness Evaluation 7 Box 3: Protection Strategy 17 Box 4: Conservation of Beels for Waterbirds in Kaziranga National Park, Assam 20 Box 5: Management of Invasive Species in Kaziranga National Park, Assam 24 Box 6: Declaration of Kaziranga Tiger Reserve in 2007 46 Box 7 Raptor community of Kaziranga National Park, Assam 72 Box 8: Kaziranga Centenary Celebrations (1905-2005) 77 References 79 List of Annexures

Annexure-I: List of water birds recorded during 2005-2006 from Kaziranga National Park. 80-82 Annexure-II: List of raptor species recorded from the Kaziranga National Park during 2005-2006. 83-84 List of Figure Figure 1: Location Map of Kaziranga National Park, Assam 8 Figure 2: Number of Rhinos Lost Due to Poaching Since 1965 17 Figure 3: Patrolling camps in Kaziranga National Park 18 Figure 4: Beels of Kaziranga National Park (1970-2001) 20 Figure 5: GIS Locations of Mimosa patch in Kaziranga National Park, Assam 24

1

Project Background Enhancing Our Heritage: Managing and Monitoring for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites is an UNESCO – IUCN project funded by the

United Nations Foundation (UNF). The six year project (2002-2007) is being implemented in nine world heritage sites located in Africa, South

Asia and Latin America. The three project sites in South Asia are Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Kaziranga National Park, Assam and

Chitwan National Park, Nepal. The Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun has been selected as a Regional Partner Institution to provide technical

backstopping for project implementation in South Asia.

The principal objectives of the project are to promote the development of monitoring and evaluation systems and to facilitate adaptive

management. Based on the lessons learnt, the project aims to enhance the periodic reporting process for the World Heritage Sites.

An initial management effectiveness evaluation as per the project methodology was carried out in Kaziranga National Park in the year 2002-03

and the findings and recommendations were presented in the World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa in September, 2003. Based on

the recommendations made in this report, capacity building and monitoring initiatives were taken up in the sites between 2003 and 2007. The

final management effectiveness evaluation was carried out from February, 2007 to November, 2007 and the results are presented in this report.

2

How the Evaluation was carried out A number of stakeholder consultations and smaller meetings were held during the course of evaluation between February ’07 to November ’07. The core team comprised of the following: Site Officers : Mr. Buragohain, Director

Mr. Utpal Bora, Divisional Forest Officer Mr. Rajendra Garawad, Assistant Conservator of Forest Mr. R. Sharma , Wild Life Research Officer

Mr. Boro, Range Officer Assam Forest Department : Mr. M. C. Malakar Mr. B. S. Bonal WII Scientist and Coordinators : Dr. V.B. Mathur Mr. B.C. Choudhary Mr. N. K. Vasu Civil Society Representative : Mr. Anwaruddin Choudhari

Mr. Gautam Narayan WII UNESCO Project Leaders : Mr. P.R. Sinha Notes on the layout of the Report For each of the six elements of the IUCN-WCPA framework viz. Context, Planning, Inputs, Process, Outputs and Outcomes the results of the final management effectiveness evaluation are presented in separate sub-sections. Key management issues and monitoring interventions are presented in 8 Boxes.

3

The Project Workbook and Tool Kits The project workbook and worksheets were appropriately modified by the EoH Project Team, based on the lessons learnt during the project

implementation across nine sites. The final Management Effectiveness Evaluation is based on these documents, which are available at project

website http://www.enhancingheritage.net/docs_public.asp.

4

Section 1: Introduction

Kaziranga National Park (KNP) got inscription on the World Heritage list in the 9th Session of the World Heritage Committee on 6/12/1985. Kaziranga National Park, known worldwide for its success in the conservation of one horned Indian Rhinoceros, also provides habitat for a number of threatened species and migratory birds. A symbol of dedication for the conservation of wildlife and their habitat, Kaziranga, with a National Park status represents single largest established protected area within the North-east Brahamputra Valley (9A) Biogeographical Province (Rodgers et al 2002) that supports the wide range of flora from microscopic aquatic plants to lofty moist deciduous trees and fauna ranging from the soil invertebrates to mega fauna such as the Rhino and the elephant.

Examples of riverine and fluvial processes representing the ongoing ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of the riverine flood plain ecosystems results from the annual flooding of mighty Brahmaputra River. In this regard, Kaziranga in the Brahmaputra valley floodplains offers an important refuge to a rich biological heritage.

The landscape formed by complex of sprawling grasslands, numerous water bodies and woodlands provide an ideal mix of habitats for a variety of flora and fauna. With adequate protection and in-situ conservation efforts that date back to almost a century, the grasslands and the mega fauna have been able to sustain in such a manner that one of the largest assemblages of these can be seen today in the wild. Prominent among them are the charismatic ‘BIG FIVE’-The Great Indian One horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) The Asiatic Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) The Asiatic Elephant (Elephas maximus), The Swamp deer, (Cervus duvauvceli ranjitsinghi),The Tiger (Panthera tigris).

The area also falls at the junction of the Australasia and Indo-Asian flyway thus providing an important migrating, breeding and nesting site for over 480 species of avifauna and has been recognised as an Important Bird Area (IBA). Significant diversity in herpetofauna and other lesser-known life forms thus provide considerable Conservation, Research, Education and Recreation values.

LOCATION:

Kaziranga National Park located is situated in the civil districts of Golaghat and Nagaon in Assam State of India.

Geographic Coordinates to the nearest second are :

Centre point: N 260 40.246’ ; E 930 21.605’

North-west corner: N 260 35.026’ ; E 930 08.784’

South-east corner: N 260 41.518’ ; E 930 35.251’

5

Box 1: Kaziranga National Park ~ 100 Years of Success Story

• 1904 : Visit of Lady Curzon, wife of the then British Viceroy,

• June 01, 1905 : Proposal for Kaziranga Reserve Forest ( 57,273.6 acre).

• January 03, 1908 : Declared Kaziranga Reserve Forest (56,544 acres).

• January 28, 1913 : An area of 13,509 acres of R.F. added.

• November 10, 1916 : Declared as a Game Sanctuary.

• 1937 : Opened for Visitors

• 1950 : Renamed as Kaziranga Game Sanctuary.

• 1966 : First census of large mammals.

• February 11, 1974 : Renamed as Kaziranga National Park

• December 06, 1985 : Inscribed on the World Heritage Site.

• 2005 : Centenary Celebrations

6

Figure 1. Location Map of Kaziranga National Park, Assam

7

Management Effectiveness Assessment

Management effectiveness evaluation aims to help managers improve conservation and management practices. As part of the global UNESCO-IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage (EoH) project ‘Monitoring and Managing for Success in World and Managing for Success in World Natural Heritage Sites’, the Kaziranga National Park was included as one of three pilot sites in South Asia. The other two sites are Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan and Chitwan National Park, Nepal. An Initial Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) as per the IUCN MEE Framework (see Box 2) was carried out in 2002-2003 and the findings were presented in the World Park Congress in Durban in 2003.

During the project implementation phase, the Project Workbook and Toolkit was revised and the Final Management Effectiveness is based on the revised version.

The Assessment Process The final Management Effectiveness Evaluation in Kaziranga National Park has been

conducted through a series of stakeholders’ consultations organized between February

2007 and November 2007. The results of the evaluation are presented in the subsequent

sections.

Box 2. IUCN-WCPA framework for

Management Effectiveness Evaluation

8

Section 2: Context and Planning Assessment The context assessment helps identify site values and threats and the context within which management occurs. This section identifies the

values that make the site significant and provide a focus for management. It helps to identify linkages between the management objectives

and the site values identified, and therefore, to identify gaps if any. Subsequently an assessment of current and potential threats is carried out.

Planning assessment includes management planning – legal framework and tenure of site, design aspects of the PA. Design aspects include

assessment of size and shape, connectivity, boundaries, inclusion of key habitats and adjacent land uses affect on ecological integrity,

community well-being and site management.

Values of Kaziranga National Park

• Kaziranga National Park (859.42 km2) is situated in the flood plains of the Brahmaputra River and the entire area has been formed by silt

deposition carried by the different river systems flowing through it. It is the largest undivided and representative protected area of

Bramhaputra Valley flood plain grassland and forest habitats. The floristic composition of the Kaziranga National Park comprises of

following forest types and biomes (Champion and Seth, 1968):

• Eastern Wet alluvial grasslands 4D / 2S2

• Assam Alluvial plains Semi-evergreen forests 2B/C1a

• Tropical moist mixed deciduous forests 3C3

• Eastern Dillenia Swamp forests 4D/SS5

• Wetlands

• Sandy “chaurs”

9

Area under different land cover types in Kaziranga Natioanl Park excluding additions and eroded area (Kushwaha, 1997)

Sl. No. Land Cover Type Area km2 % Area

1 Woodland 114.01 27.95

2 Short grass 12.30 3.01

3 Tall Grass 248.85 61.01

4 Beels 24.32 5.96

5 Jiya Daphlu 3.96 0.97

6 Mora Diphlu 2.84 0.70

7 Sand 1.62 0.40

Total 407.90 100.00

Biodiversity values:

Assemblage of rare, endangered, threatened flora and fauna :

• World’s largest population of The Great Indian One horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis),

• Significant populations of Asiatic Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), Asiatic Elephant (Elephas maximus), Swamp deer, (Cervus duvauvceli

ranjitsinghi), Tiger (Panthera tigris).

• Resident and migratory avifauna of over 490 species, junction of Australasia and Indo-Asian flyway, 25 globally threatened spp. including

Bengal florican

10

Other natural values:

• Tropical floodplain grassland

• Functional ecological floodplain ecosystem

Cultural values:

• Unique secular worship of ‘Kakomai’-forest deity

• Unique lifestyle of Mishing, Karbi and other tribes

Economic Values:

• Employment generation for local people (Forest department and tourism related)

• Tourism revenue for Forest and Tourism Departments

Educational values:

• Education and research values about tropical biodiversity and ecological processes.

• Significant diversity in herpetofauna and other lesser-known life forms thus provide considerable Conservation, Research, Education and

Recreation values.

11

Worksheet 1a for Tool 1: Identifying major site values

List the major site values Is this a World Heritage value? Information sources used for determining the values

Great Indian one horned rhinoceros Yes (ix) Nomination document and IUCN evaluation Management plan (2003-2013) + older mgmt plan

Asiatic wild buffalo

Yes (ix) Nomination document and IUCN evaluation Management plan (2003-2013) + older mgmt plan

Tiger Yes(ix) -do-

Eastern swamp deer

Yes(ix) Management plan

Asiatic elephant Yes (ix) Management plan

Bengal Florican Yes(ix) Management plan

Resident and migratory avifauna (includes 25 globally threatened spp.)

No Management plan and other publications* reference

Biodiversity Values

Assemblage of rare, endangered, threatened flora and fauna

Yes(ix) -do-

Tropical floodplain grassland

Yes (x) Management plan, Nomination document and IUCN evaluation

Functional ecological floodplain ecosystem

Yes (x) -do-

Other Natural Values

12

List the major site values Is this a World Heritage value? Information sources used for determining the values

Cultural Values

Unique secular worship of ‘Kakomai’-forest deity

No

Management plan and other popular publication

Unique lifestyle of Mishing, Karbi and other tribes in the Zone of Influence

No

Management plan and other documents

Employment generation for local people No Management Plan Economic

Values

Tourism revenue for the Forest and Tourism Depts.

No Management Plan, Annual Plan of OperationsAPO

Educational Values

Considerable education and research values about tropical biodiversity and ecological processes.

No

Management Plan

Ecodevelopment activities for the socio-economic improvement of the villages around the park provide tangible and non-tangible benefits

No

Management Plan Other Social Values

Recreation opportunities

13

Worksheet 1b for Tool 1: Documenting management objectives and their relationship to site values

The current Management Plan (2003-04 to 20012-13) has formulated management objectives for species, habitat requirements, research, recreation and resource dependence of communities.

Principal Management Objectives Major values that are related to this objective

To maintain and wherever necessary restore the demographic features relating to the populations of all endangered, endemic, vulnerable, rare species of animals and plants with special focus on Rhino, Tiger and their habitat.

Biodiversity values

To maintain and wherever necessary restore the physical integrity of the area with special considerations to the flooding pattern.

Biodiversity and Other Natural values

To enhance the quality of educational, recreational and wilderness experience given to the general public.

Educational and recreational values

To identify research priorities and implement such programmes to establish and create opportunities for enhancing management capabilities and knowledge of wildlife science

Educational values

Consistent with the above four objectives , in the zone of influence with sensitivity to cultural and economic well being of the communities and reduce the dependence on forest based resources.

Economic and Cultural values

14

Worksheet for Tool 2: Identifying Threats

Current threats that Kaziranga National Park and the wildlife face include poaching, floods and infrastructure damage, disruption of connectivity to the Karbi Anglong Hills and anthropogenic pressures for resource(s). Potential threats include habitat degradation, upstream infrastructure development and pollution.

Threats to Biodiversity Values Impact of threat Management response List Threats

Is it a Current or Potential Threat?

Identify major sources of threat Extent Severity Action Urgency of action

Data source

List all important

threats to the value indicated

at the top of the table

Current threats are already taking place, potential threats are

known threats which have not yet impacted the value

- Activities which are causing destruction, degradation or other

negative impacts to the value - Each threat has at least one, and may

have several, sources.

Indicate the extent of the value being, or

likely to be, impacted, i.e. area, habitat type,

cultural value and rate as low; medium;

high or very high

Indicate whether the threat will completely destroy the value or

cause only minor changes and rate as low; medium; high or

very high

Describe what actions are planned or have taken place

to manage the threat

Indicate as low (i.e. management action

is not urgent); medium, high or very high (i.e. immediate action is needed to

stop serious or irreversible damage)

Record whether the assessment has been made through expert

workshop or from using the results of

monitoring or research, etc.

Illegal International market. Large High Management Plan (2003) and Workshop Poaching of

Rhinoceros Current

Source(s) Poachers within the country or region coupled with poor economic condition.

Large High Stringent anti-poaching actions are taken (see Box 3).

Very urgent

High mortality and infrastructure damage during monsoon

Current

Source(s) High flood of River Brahmaputra

Medium Medium Artificial high grounds have been built. Rescue and rehabilitation works are done.

Urgent Department Records

Demand in illegal market Poaching of Tiger

Potential Source(s) Poor livelihood conditions of

local communities

Large Medium Regular anti poaching actions are taken.

Department Records

Disruption of habitat connectivities with adjoining forested areas

Current Source(s) Haphazard and extensive settlements Extensive stone quarrying, illegal felling of trees, overexploitation of bamboo

Entire stretch of southern boundary including designated corridors with Karbi Anglong hills and along Bramhaputra.

High Medium

Action on eco-sensitive Zone initiated Sensitization of other line departments

Urgent Urgent

Threats to Biodiversity Values

15

Impact of threat Management response List Threats

Is it a Current or Potential Threat?

Identify major sources of threat Extent Severity Action Urgency of action

Data source

List all important

threats to the value indicated

at the top of the table

Current threats are already taking place, potential threats are

known threats which have not yet impacted the value

- Activities which are causing destruction, degradation or other

negative impacts to the value - Each threat has at least one, and may

have several, sources.

Indicate the extent of the value being, or

likely to be, impacted, i.e. area, habitat type,

cultural value and rate as low; medium;

high or very high

Indicate whether the threat will completely destroy the value or

cause only minor changes and rate as low; medium; high or

very high

Describe what actions are planned or have taken place

to manage the threat

Indicate as low (i.e. management action

is not urgent); medium, high or very high (i.e. immediate action is needed to

stop serious or irreversible damage)

Record whether the assessment has been made through expert

workshop or from using the results of

monitoring or research, etc.

Intermingling of wild and domestic buffalo

Current Source(s) Cattle camps in the 6th addition area

Northern areas of the NP

Medium Legal process for clearing of existing cattle camps underway

Very urgent Muley (2001)

Illegal fishing Current Source(s) Fishing operations in the adjacent areas

Confined to specific localities

Medium Patrolling, protection and communication with concerned line agencies

Urgent

Exotic weeds, water hyacinth

Medium Very severe Eradication and control measures being taken (see Box 4).

Very urgent (Kushwaha, 1997) (Vattakkavan et al., 2002)

Biotic pressure in 6th Addition area

Medium Medium Legal proceedings are underway.

Very urgent

Sedimentation of wetlands

Medium Medium Removal of silt is undertaken on a small scale (see Box 5.

Urgent See Box 4.

Habitat degradation

Current

Source(s)

Livestock grazing in some fringe areas Overuse of short grass areas by wild buffalo.

Restricted Restricted

Medium High

Preventive action taken Detailed study required

Urgent Urgent

Disruption of annual flooding cycles

Potential Source(s) Construction of upstream mega

dams

Entire ecosystem Very severe Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) is required

Urgent

Increased pollution of Bramhaputra waters

Potential Source(s)

Upstream effluent discharge by industrial units

Entire ecosystem Medium Sensitization and coordination with other scientific institutions

Urgent The Department currently has no monitoring programme

16

Threats to Biodiversity Values

Impact of threat Management response List Threats

Is it a Current or Potential Threat?

Identify major sources of threat Extent Severity Action Urgency of action

Data source

List all important

threats to the value indicated

at the top of the table

Current threats are already taking place, potential threats are

known threats which have not yet impacted the value

- Activities which are causing destruction, degradation or other

negative impacts to the value - Each threat has at least one, and may

have several, sources.

Indicate the extent of the value being, or

likely to be, impacted, i.e. area, habitat type,

cultural value and rate as low; medium;

high or very high

Indicate whether the threat will completely destroy the value or

cause only minor changes and rate as low; medium; high or

very high

Describe what actions are planned or have taken place

to manage the threat

Indicate as low (i.e. management action

is not urgent); medium, high or very high (i.e. immediate action is needed to

stop serious or irreversible damage)

Record whether the assessment has been made through expert

workshop or from using the results of

monitoring or research, etc.

Changing demographic and economic profile

Current Source(s)

Land alienation and monetization of subsistence economy

In the Zone of Influence High Coordination with other line agencies

Urgent Census Data

Large scale hoteliers (no ploughing back of resources in the community)

In the Zone of Influence Medium Policy enabling plough back of certain share of profits required

Urgent Progressive alienation of local people from tourism opportunities and benefits

Current

Source(s)

Lack of financial capabilities among local villagers

In the Zone of Influence Medium Develop micro finance schemes

Urgent

Source(s) Unregulated and lopsided vehicular traffic

Tourism Zone (four routes)

Severe Tourism policy formulation and appropriate regulation of vehicles

Very Urgent Department Records Manifold increase in tourism

Current

Lack of interpretation facility Tourism Zone (four routes)

Steps for interpretation services initiated

Very urgent

17

Box 3: Protection Strategy Poaching of rhinos is a significant threat to Kaziranga National Park. To address this issue the park has set up an intensive protection mechanism by way of extensive intelligence network, inter departmental coordination and establishment of a large number of antipoaching camps manned by highly dedicated frontline staff, which has helped to significantly curtail the poaching incidents (Figure 2). Kaziranga National Park has 125 anti poaching camps scattered throughout the park at strategic locations (Figure 3). Field camps are the mainstay of the protection activity in the park. The location of these camps is determined by considering the vulnerability of rhinoceros in the area. During last five years, the conditions of these camps have been improved and many have been reconstructed using support from various schemes of Govt. of India, Rhino and Elephant Conservation Projects from US Fish and Wildlife Service, Oil India etc.

18

5

1210

8

2

8

0

3 35

10

32

11

25

37

28

45

33

24

44

35

23

48

40

14

2726

12

8

4

8

4

75

13

4

3

4

44

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Num

bers

Figure 2. Number of Rhinos Lost Due to Poaching Since 1965 (Source: KNP records)

18

The anti-poaching activities in Kaziranga National Park can be divided into three phases: Pre-entry: The main activity in this phase is proactive action that includes intelligence gathering on the activities of poachers in the vicinity of the park. The intelligence providers are usually local villagers or poachers turned informers. Efforts are also made by the park authorities to involve the local people in furnishing information on the movements of poachers through implementation of ecodevelopment activities as well as through education and awareness drives in the fringe villages of the National Park. Post entry: This calls for reactive action, which denotes the activities undertaken by the staff to track down and apprehend the poachers inside the park, once such information has been received or evidences thereof have been found by the park authorities. Post exit: This is the investigative and prosecutive phase after the poachers escape from the park, after committing an offence inside the park. This phase mainly consists of co-ordination with other law-enforcing agencies like Police to keep track of the poachers and to nab them.

Figure 3. Patrolling camps in Kaziranga National Park

19

The Wireless Communication Network in the park has been recently upgraded through building partnerships with Aaranayak, a local NGO with support from David Shephard Wildlife Foundation, UK. All Fixed Stations and mobile handsets have been replaced by new Motorala equipment. New transport vehicles to increase mobility of the protection staff have been provided through schemes of the Government of India, four Maruty Gypsy vehicles by US Fish and Wildlife Service.

As part of the UNESCO EoH Project a study on ‘Improving Protection and Capacity building requirements of staff’ was undertaken in the park. This study ((http://www.enhancingheritage.net/docs_public.asp) has recommended:

(i) While the park’s legal boundaries have been well defined by various notifications (including the 6 additions to the park), a detailed survey and demarcation and fixing of boundary pillars is needed.

(ii) A new range needs to be established with its full complement of staff to manage the park affairs in the sixth addition area (Brahmaputra river and chapories etc).

An interactive session with the park staff resulted in their identification of the skills that they wished to acquire: These are (i) Handling firearms; (ii) Social interaction skills; (iii) Driving, swimming; (iv) Wireless system management; (v) Wildlife management; (vi) Language; (vii) First aid and (viii) Intelligence gathering.

A focussed group discussion during the SWOT workshop on the staff’s expectations regarding welfare and amenities revealed the following: (i) Provide more facilities (uniform, housing, school etc) to staff; (ii) Improve roads in the park; (iii) Provide modern equipments including weapons and vehicles to staff for patrolling; (iv) Improve communication facilities; (v) Recruit more staff; (vi) Create good camps on boundary and (vii) Improve infrastructure like temporary roads, bridges etc.

Under the new sponsored UNF-UNESCO ‘World Heritage Biodiversity Programme for India (WHBPI) (2007-11) measures to strengthen park infrastructure and to provide staff welfare amenities would be undertaken.

20

Box 4: Conservation of Beels for Waterbirds in Kaziranga National Park, Assam

Waterbodies, locally called ‘beels’ in the Kaziranga National Park (KNP) are the most important refuges for water birds both resident and migratory. During 2005-2006, monitoring of various ‘beels’ in all the four ranges of KNP was initiated under UNESCO-IUCN Project ‘Enhancing Our Heritage’. The objective was to document water bird species richness, relative abundance and threats associated to these beels.

In all, 34 beels were surveyed; 10 in Kohora Range (Central) i.e. Kathphora, Mihibeel, Navbhangi, Borbeel, Laodubi, Daphlang, Ajgor, Monabeel, Karasing and Sukhani were surveyed, 11 in Agratoli Range (Eastern) i.e. Sohola, Mohamari, Tinibeel, Bhalukmari, Rongamatia, Koladuar, Kilakili, Kapurkhosa, Borbeel, Amora, and Notun, 8 in Bagori Range (Western) 8 i.e. Donga, Raumari, Diphlumori, Moorphuloni, Ghorakati, Sapekati, Gendamari, and Bimoli, and 5 in Burapahar Range (further Western) i.e. Kotahi, Borguph, Tunikati, Baghbeel, and Jhaubeel. A total of 49 species of water birds were identified from all 34 beels with the most dominant species being Common Teal Anas crecca (1613), followed by Northern Pintail Anas acuta (1566), Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus (1000), Greylag Goose Anser anser (900), Gadwall Anas strepera (655) and Lesser Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna javanica (645) (See Annexure 1). Of these, 9 species are globally threatened; 2 Vulnerable i.e. Lesser Adjutant Stork Leptoptilos javanicus and Swamp Francolin Francolinus gularis and 7 Near-threatened i.e. Falcated Teal Anas falcata, Ferruginous Pochard Aythya nyroca, Black-necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus, Oriental White Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus, Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis and Darter Anhinga melanogaster which took shelter in many of these beels.

Figure 4. Beels of Kaziranga National Park (1970-2001)

21

The highest number of water bird species especially migratory was recorded from Agratoli (44 spp.) followed by Bagori (32 spp.), Burapahar (28 spp.) and Kohora (25 spp.) Ranges. From Agratoli Range, a maximum of 7862 water birds were recorded of which 5687 were counted from Sohola beel belonging to 31 species and 1158 from Bhalukmari beel of 15 species. From Kohora Range, a maximum of 2486 birds were recorded of which 512 from Navbhangi beel (13 spp.) and 410 from Mihibeel (8 spp.). From Bagori Range, about 2101 birds were recorded of which 678 from Gendamari (12 spp.) and 321 from Moorpholoni (24 spp.) beels. The Burapahar Range showed a maximum of 1497 water birds of which 978 were recorded at Tunikati (22 spp.) and 408 at Kotahi beels (6 spp.). Maximum number of water birds species were recorded from Sohola beel of Agratoli Range i.e. 31 followed by Moorpholoni and Donga beels of Bagori Range i.e. 24 and 22 respectively and 22 species from Tunikati beel from Burapahar Range. Of the 8 globally threatened water bird species recorded in the KNP, Bimoli beel of Bagori Range, and Sohola beel of Agratoli Range provide shelter to many of these IUCN Red listed species (Table 1). A pair of Falcated Teal, globally threatened species could only be observed at Baghbeel of Burapahar Range. A large rookery of Spot-billed Pelican (150 individuals, 60 nests) was located during December 2005 along Koladuar beel largely on Semul trees Bombax ceiba (Plate 1).

Plate 1. Agratoli Range of Kaziranga National Park is an important Rookery of globally threatened Spot-billed Pelicans

22

Regular flooding in the KNP is important to make these beels free of water-hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes which otherwise choke the large extent of waterbodies and thereby adversely affecting activities of many water birds especially ducks (Plate 2). About 40% of beels surveyed were found infested with this weed. Another threat facing the beels is that they are becoming shallow and shallow year after year due to heavy load of silts and their size is decreasing and some are even disappearing (Plate 3).

Plate 2. Water hyacinth choking beel, a serious concern for migratory water birds

Plate 3. Due to siltation and water hyacinth infestation many water birds are losing their habitats

23

S.No Name of

Beel Area (approx) km2

Maximum count

Total species

Threatened spp.

1 Kathphora 0.15 78 15 3 2 Mihibeel 0.3 410 8 2 3 Navbhangi 1 512 13 4 4 Borbeel 10 248 8 2 5 Laodubi 8 156 16 3 6 Daphlang 0.3 52 9 2 7 Ajgor 6 65 11 4 8 Monabeel 6 150 16 3 9 Karasing 0.6 251 18 3 10 Sukhani 6 564 17 4 11 Donga 1 254 22 4 12 Raumari 3 191 15 2 13 Diphlumori 0.8 199 14 1 14 Moorphuloni 1 321 24 4 15 Ghorakati 0.075 104 8 2 16 Sapekati 4 256 12 3 17 Gendamari 0.25 678 12 3

S.No Name of Beel

Area (approx) km2

Maximum count

Total species

Threatened spp.

18 Bimoli 0.3 98 17 6 19 Sohola 7.5 5687 31 5 20 Mohamari 0.375 53 12 1 21 Tinibeel 0.032 70 15 4 22 Bhalukmari 0.75 1158 15 3 23 Rongamatia 0.75 103 11 2 24 Koladuar 0.5 10 3 1 25 Kilakili 1 305 9 2 26 Kapurkhosa 0.45 101 14 2 27 Borbeel 0.5 306 16 3 28 Amora 1 30 10 1 29 Notun 3.75 39 13 1 30 Kotahi 0.75 408 6 0 31 Borguph 1.5 4 3 0 32 Tunikati 1.8 978 22 3 33 Baghbeel 0.4 97 13 2 34 Jhaubeel 0.04 10 6 2

Table1. Characteristics of various beels monitored during 2005-2006 in Kaziranga National Park for waterbirds.

24

Box 5: Management of Invasive Species in Kaziranga National Park, Assam

The grasslands of Kaziranga are threatened by a number of plant invasive species, prominent among them are: Mimosa invisia (thorny) and Mimosa invisia inermis (thornless). A native of Brazil, this plant was introduced into tea gardens in the late 1960s for fixing atmospheric nitrogen and was first detected at KNP in 1987. It is an erect, climbing shrub, biennial or perennial depending on the climate, often forming dense thickets, strong root systems and often becoming woody at the base, stem and branches with many recurved spines or thorns. The negative impacts of Mimosa proliferation are:

(a) Grasslands are being invaded by Mimosa out-competing existing plants, causing substantial loss of the prime short grassland habitats.

(b) Mimosa hampers free movement of the wild animals especially smaller herbivores like barking and hog deer.

(c) Indications are that Mimosin, a non-protein amino acid in Mimosa is hazardous to animals and hence could harm rhinos and other herbivores when ingested.

The Wildlife Institute of India provided technical support in spatial mapping of the outcomes of a survey that was conducted by Wildlife Trust of India in 2003 in collaboration with the Assam Forest Department and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to study various aspects of Mimosa distribution and extent of area infested (http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/html/reports/reports.htm). Mimosa was observed to be distributed more along the boundaries of Kaziranga National Park. The survey determined that due to the prompt action of the park authorities, assisted by WTI and IFAW, the extent of Mimosa in the park was limited to about 0.5 per cent (2.13 km2) within the tall grassland areas while the weed had not yet taken root in the short grassland areas (which is one of the main food sources for megaherbivores of the park). Of the four Ranges of the park, the study observed that Baguri Range was the most infested (58 per cent of the total infested area), followed by Kohora (39 per cent) and Agratoli (3 per cent) and priority action (effort, time and funds) for control measures was needed in the Baguri Range. The seedling germination density was the highest in Baguri with 55 seedlings/m2, Kohora with 20 seedlings/m2 and Agratoli with 12 seedlings/m2.

Figure 5. GIS Locations of Mimosa patch in

Kaziranga National Park, Assam

25

The following measures have been suggested for aiding in the eradication of Mimosa from KNP: (a) The Mimosa control measures should be carried on annually for at least three years continuously to ensure complete eradication from the

park. (b) The plant should be completely uprooted and not cut at the base and this has to be followed by burning to achieve the best results. (c) Eradication should be done

twice a year: once in October - November and early December before the seeds are mature and once in May-June, when young regenerated plants carpet the ground.

(d) An integrated management plan involving biological control, herbicide application, mechanical removal, controlled burning and pasture management should be put in place to ensure that further infestation does not occur from the tea gardens and that complete eradication is achieved in the Park.

(e) A targeted awareness campaign should be conducted among tea- related organizations and other planter's bodies to educate them about the menace of Mimosa.

(f) Interruptions in the control program to be avoided, since this allows Mimosa to recover from the past treatment.

Plate 4. Mimosa control measures

26

Worksheet 3a for Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholders/Partners

The major stakeholders identified and issues pertaining to each of these are listed below Department of Environment and Forest • Conservation of biodiversity through protection and other management practices • Effective management interventions leading to enhanced biodiversity values • Positive image enhancement, showcasing replicable conservation management capabilities • Generation of skilled and motivated staff Local people • Emotional attachment to conservation success of Kaziranga. • Resource dependency (fishing) leading to disturbance • Denial of traditional access to resources • Less poaching through information to the management helps enhancement of biodiversity values • Employment opportunities and added income for fringe area communities • Enhanced awareness about wildlife Other government agencies • Policy formulation and liaison with forest dept. and direct/indirect involvement in various conservation measures • Linear infrastructure development (potential threat), Road widening (potential impact) • Information sharing, antipoaching, • Flood monitoring and control thereby aiding conservation. Educational Institutions • Education and research opportunities and study tours from universities, colleges and schools • Generation of data about biodiversity values • Positive social influence

27

UNESCO & other International Agencies • Help enhance management capabilities • Maintaining site integrity for protecting outstanding universal values • Augmentation of infrastructure and training • Capacity building for management NGOs • Conservation of biodiversity through research, help to management to fill the gaps etc. • Community awareness initiatives • Advocacy on larger environmental issues • Assistance in improvement of infrastructure and training of personnel • Formal and informal, issue specific participation Tourist and wildlife lovers • Wildlife conservation awareness, Increased conservation awareness and public support for the site • Provision of recreational and educational opportunities.

28

Worksheet 3a for Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholder/Partners

Major Values: Biodiversity

Name of Stakeholder Department of Environment and Forest

Local people Other government agencies

Educational Institutions

UNESCO & other International Agencies.

NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers

Main issues associated with this stakeholder

Conservation of biodiversity through protection and other management practices

Emotional attachment to conservation success of the biodiversity.

Policy formulation and Liason with forest dept. and direct/indirect involvement in various conservation measures

Education and research opportunities (study tours and academic curriculum activities in universities, colleges and schools)

Maintaining site integrity for protecting outstanding universal values. Capacity building for management

Conservation of biodiversity through research, help to management to fill the gaps etc. Community awareness initiatives.Advocacy on larger environmental issues

Wildlife viewing opportunities and visitor experience

Economic dependency

Substantial

Considerable. Negligible except for tourism dept.

- - Ecotourism initiatives being developed by select NGOs.

Wildlife photography, videography and nature guides

Und

erst

andi

ng S

take

hold

ers

List negative impacts of stakeholders on site

None

Resource dependency (fishing, poaching) leading to disturbance and degradation

Linear infrastructure development (potential threat),

None None NGOs with vested interests cause conflicts through misinformation campaigns

Littering, irresponsible behaviour

29

Name of Stakeholder Department of Environment and Forest

Local people Other government agencies

Educational Institutions

UNESCO & other International Agencies.

NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers

List negative impacts of site management on stakeholders

None Denial of traditional access to resources

None None None None None

List positive impacts of stakeholders on site

Effective management interventions leading to enhanced biodiversity values

Less poaching through information to the management helps enhancement of biodiversity values.

Information sharing, antipoaching, flood control thereby aiding conservation.

Generation of data about biodiversity values.

augmentation of infrastructure and training

Assistance in improvement of infrastructure and training of personnel

Increased conservation awareness and public support for the site

List positive impacts of site management on stakeholders

Positive image enhancement. Showcasing replicable conservation management capabilities. Generation of skilled and motivated staff.

Employment opportunities and added income for fringe area communities. Enhanced awareness about wildlife

Building partnership for management.

Provision of suitable education and research opportunities

Supporting UNESCO’s initiatives for WH conservation through reporting and other requirement

Supporting of NGO initiatives for conservation through involvement in management interventions

Provision of recreational and educational opportunities. Wildlife conservation awareness

Willingness/capacity of stakeholders to engage with site management

Obligate and dedicated

Very much willing

Willing Considerable capacity exists.

Willing and capable (directly and through advisory bodies)

Willing and capable in specific aspects

Willing

30

Name of Stakeholder Department of Environment and Forest

Local people Other government agencies

Educational Institutions

UNESCO & other International Agencies.

NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers

Willingness/capacity of site management to engage with stakeholders

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Political/Social influence

Not applicable

Varying according to specific situation

Not applicable Positive social influence

Not applicable

Issue specific Favourable and considerable

Favourable

Organisation of stakeholders

Well organised

Not organised Organised Organised

Well organised

Organised

Not organised

What opportunities do stakeholders have to contribute to management?

All aspects of site management are contributed to by the stakeholder. Formal and comprehensive

Informal and formally in varying degrees for anti-poaching, flood management, tourism

Formal and specific: Anti-poaching, flood management, tourism

Formal in varying degree relevant data and information generation.

Formal for enhanced management capacity.

Formal and informal, issue specific participation

Informal to a large extent

Ass

essm

ent o

f St

akeh

olde

r Eng

agem

ent

What is the level of engagement of the stakeholder?

Very high

Moderate Moderate Low Moderate High Negligible

Sum

mar

y Describe the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement

Very Good

Fair

Fair Fair

Fair

Good

Poor

31

Name of Stakeholder Department of Environment and Forest

Local people Other government agencies

Educational Institutions

UNESCO & other International Agencies.

NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers

Rat

ing

Rate the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement, as either very good; good; fair or poor

Very Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Poor

Major Values: Other Natural Values

Name of Stakeholder Department of Environment and Forest

Local people Other government agencies

Educational Institute

UNESCO & other International Agencies.

NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers

Main issues associated with this stakeholder

Protection Not specific Not specific Education and Research

Help to management to fill the gaps etc.

Research, help to management to fill the gaps etc.

Economic dependency

Substantial

Considerable. None None None None Medium

List negative impacts of stakeholders on site

None

None Road widening (potential impact)

None None None Resource Degradation

Und

erst

andi

ng S

take

hold

ers

List negative impacts of site management on stakeholders

None Some people are residing in 6th Addition areas.

None None None None None

32

Name of Stakeholder Department of Environment and Forest

Local people Other government agencies

Educational Institute

UNESCO & other International Agencies.

NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers

List positive impacts of stakeholders on site

High level of protection.

Less poaching through information to the management

Information sharing, antipoaching, flood control thereby aiding conservation.

Generation of data about biodiversity values

Enhancement of management capability.

Enhancement of management capability.

Enhancing the profile of the park

List positive impacts of site management on stakeholders

Good model of park management

Enhanced awareness about wildlife.

Information sharing particularly with law enforcement agencies

Good site for research and education

Good model for WHS management

Good model for park-public partnership

High visitor satisfaction

Willingness/capacity of stakeholders to engage with site management

Obligate

Very much willing

Capable Considerable capacity exists.

Sufficient Sufficient Yes

Willingness/capacity of site management to engage with stakeholders

Obligate Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Political/Social influence

-

Considerable Considerable Considerable

Organisation of stakeholders

Well organised

Not organised Organised (scope for coordination)

Well organised

Well organised

Well organised

Reasonably organised

33

Name of Stakeholder Department of Environment and Forest

Local people Other government agencies

Educational Institute

UNESCO & other International Agencies.

NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers

What opportunities do stakeholders have to contribute to management?

-

Anti-poaching, flood management, tourism

Information sharing, Anti-poaching, flood management

Management relevant data and information generation.

Enhance management capacity.

Enhance management capacity. Awareness generation.

-

Ass

essm

ent o

f St

akeh

olde

r En

gage

men

t

What is the level of engagement of the stakeholder?

Very high

High Moderate High High High Moderate

Sum

mar

y Describe the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement

Adequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Adequate

Inadequate

Rat

ing

Rate the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement, as either very good; good; fair or poor

Very Good Good Fair Fair Good Good Fair

34

Worksheet 3b for Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholders/Partners - Summary Table

Major Values Department of Environment and Forest

Local people Other government agencies

Educational Institute

UNESCO & other International Agencies.

NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers

Overall Stakeholder Engagement for

major values

Name of stakeholder

Department of Environment and Forest

Local people Other Government Agencies

Educational Institute

UNESCO & other International Agencies.

NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers

Biodiversity Very Good Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Other Natural Values

Very Good Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good

Overall Engagement of the Stakeholder

Very Good Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good

35

Worksheet for Tool 4: Review of National Context

India has enacted several legislations to deal with the conservation of biodiversity and management of wildlife and protected areas. The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act was enacted in 1972 and has been amended by the Indian Parliament from time to time in response to the changing scenario of conservation at the field and country level. India has also enacted the Biodiversity Act in 2002 and has also formulated the National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016). India now has four categories of Protected Areas viz., National Park, Wildlife Sanctuary, Conservation Reserve and Community Reserve. The process of gazettment of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries has been clearly outlined in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. India now has a network of Protected Areas comprising 96 National Parks and 510 Wildlife Sanctuaries covering 4.77% of the geographical area of the country. India has also developed a “Biogeographical Classification of India” which provides the framework for establishment of Protected Areas on a biogeographically representative basis. At the apex level, there is a National Board of Wildlife (NBWL) which is chaired by the Prime Minister of India and has adequate representation from Government Agencies and Civil Society representatives. Similarly, at the State level there are State Wildlife Advisory Boards chaired by the Chief Ministers, which provide the necessary policy guidance on wildlife matters. The Government of India as well as the State Governments are committed to conserve the rich biological heritage of the country. A countrywide effort is now on to involve stakeholders particularly local communities in the conservation and management of wildlife and protected areas in the country. Several non governmental and civil society institutions and individuals are now working together with the PA management and are also operating their own programmes for conservation of biodiversity.

Criteria Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations/Comments World Heritage Site and protected area legislation

Wildlife (Protection) Act together other forest and environment acts of India provide a very strong base for conservation of overall wildlife values. [Adequate, useful, Yes]

The Act is robust, no significant weaknesses are mentionable.

Punishment terms may be made more stringent

Conservation within broader government policy

There is a separate department at State level and separate ministry at national level. Attempts to integrate conservation within the broader government policy

Some policies of local self government(LSG) contradict conservation policy/practices

Suitable amendments required to LSG policy/practices

36

Criteria Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations/Comments International conservation conventions and treaties

Government of India is a signatory to almost all international conventions like CITES, CBD etc. Awareness of the WH status among all stakeholders is a matter of prestige

None Increased awareness on CITES, WH convention

Government support for the World Heritage site

Government support is substantial but scope for enhancing support for effective management of the site exists

Inconsistency in support Delay in release of funds at the State level.

Comprehensive support on a sustained basis needs to be maintained

National Protected Area Agency and the World Heritage site

Engagement is satisfactory. Centrally Sponsored Schemes provide adequate support.

Site visits by Central agencies infrequent

Streamlining of Central and State Govt resource provision.

37

Section 3: Planning

Worksheet 5a for Tool 5: Management Planning Information Sheet

Name of plan

Level of approval of

the plan (L,G,A, S/A,D)*

Year of preparation,

likely completion or most recent

review

Year specified for next

review of plan

Comments

Kaziranga National Park Management Plan (2003-2013)

G 2002 2009 Serious attempts to consider conservation concerns in the larger development strategies need to be made

L= plan has force of law (usually has been approved by the Parliament or legal instrument)

G= plan has been approved at the government level but is not a legal instrument

A= plan has been approved at Head of Agency level

S/A= plan has been approved at a senior level within the Agency

D= plan is a draft and has not been formally approved.

38

Worksheet 5b for Tool 5: Adequacy of Primary Planning Document

The current management plan clearly articulates the need for managing wildlife species populations and habitat through its objectives and theme plans and prescriptions that together give the desired future conditions of the populations and their habitat. A mid term review of the Plan is expected to be undertaken in 2009 that will enable stock taking and opportunities for course corrections. Though wider consultations with the stakeholders was not made during plan preparation, the needs and requirements of local communities have been kept into consideration throughout. The plan being the first one prepared on the basis of the Management Plan preparation guidelines provides a clear basis for developing work programmes and budgets within the various theme plans that have been put forth.

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps Decision making framework

Desired future is explicitly articulated as a decision making reference point

VG

Desired future is reasonably articulated G Desired future is not clearly articulated but is implied or can be inferred from plan objectives

F

1. Does the plan establish a clear understanding of the desired future for the site? (i.e. describes the desired outcomes of management in terms that provides a guide to management and decision making by site managers)

Plan focuses more on present issues and actions and doesn’t indicate a desired future for the site

P

Will be considered at the time of review.

Desired future is expressed in a way that provides clear guidance for addressing new issues and opportunities

VG

Desired future is expressed in a way that gives some guidance for addressing new issues and opportunities

G

Desired future is not clearly articulated and provides only limited guidance for addressing new threats and opportunities

F

2. Does the plan express the desired future for the site so that it can assist management of new issues and opportunities that arise during the life of the plan?

The plan focuses more on present issues and actions and doesn’t indicate any desired future for the site

P

De-sedimentation of wetlands, plan for addition areas, ecodevelopment plan, tourism plan etc provide guidance about future implied from the objectives.

Will be considered at the time of review

39

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps Plan provides a clear, explicit and appropriate process for monitoring, review and adjustment

VG

Provisions for monitoring, review and adjustment of the plan are present but are incomplete, unclear or inappropriate in some minor respects

G

Need for monitoring, review and adjustment is recognised but is not dealt with in sufficient detail

F

3. Does the plan provide for a process of monitoring, review and adjustment during the life of the plan?

Plan does not address the need for monitoring, review and adjustment

P

- Will be considered at the time of review

Planning context Policy requirements for the site are identified and adequate and appropriate policies are established with clear linkages to the desired future for the site

VG

Policy requirements for the site are identified and policies are largely adequate and appropriate although there are gaps

G

Policies in the plan are inadequate or incomplete in many respects

F

4. Does the plan provide an adequate and appropriate policy environment for management of the World Heritage site?

Plan either doesn’t establish policies for the area or the policies are inadequate or inappropriate in major respects

P

Policy requirement about total integration of the additional areas are not adequate.

Will be considered at the time of review.

40

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps Relevant national, regional and sectoral plans that affect the site are identified and specific mechanisms are included to provide for integration or linkage now and in the future

VG

Relevant national, regional and sectoral plans that affect the site are identified, their influence on the site is taken into account but there is little attempt at integration

G

Some relevant national, regional and sectoral plans are identified but there is no attempt at integration

F

5. Is the plan integrated/linked to other significant national/regional/sectoral plans that influence management of the World Heritage site?

No account is taken of other plans affecting the site

P

Industrialization in the vicinity of the site, development of roads & agriculture etc. are important issues that need harmonization and integration with PA management

Plan Content The information base for the plan is up to date and adequate in scope and depth and is matched to the major decisions, policies and issues addressed in the plan

VG

The information base is adequate in scope and depth but maybe a little out dated and/or contain irrelevant information (i.e. a broad compilation of data rather than matching information to the decisions, policies and issues addressed in the plan)

G

The information base is out of date and/or has inadequacies in scope or depth so that some issues, decisions or policies cannot be placed into context

F

6. Is the plan based on an adequate and relevant information base?

Very little information relevant to plan decisions is presented

P

Data on effect of flood, erosion, controlled burning, sedimentation, etc are largely experience based and lack strong scientific backing.

Improvement of information base is a priority with site management and this issue is being attended.

41

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps The site values have been clearly identified and linked to well defined management objectives and desired outcomes for the site.

VG

The site values have been reasonably identified and linked to management objectives and desired outcomes for the site.

G

The site values have not been clearly identified or linked to management objectives and desired outcomes for the site.

F

7. Have the values for the site been identified in the plan and linked to the management objectives and desired outcomes for the site?

The site values have not been identified. P

Plan identifies primary issues for the site and deals with them within the context of the desired future for the site (i.e. plan is outcome rather than issues driven)

VG

Plan identifies primary issues for the site but tends to deal with them in isolation or out of context of the desired future for the site

G

Some significant issues for the site are not addressed in the plan or the issues are not adequately addressed

F

8. Does the plan address the primary issues facing management of the World Heritage Area within the context of the desired future of the site?

Many significant issues are not addressed or are inadequately dealt with in the plan

P

Conservation of eastern Swamp deer, Bengal florican etc have not been adequately addressed.

Periodic monitoring protocols and plans are incorporated.

Objectives and actions are adequate and appropriate for all issues

VG

Objectives and actions are adequate and appropriate for most issues

G

Objectives and actions are frequently inadequate or inappropriate

F

9. Are the objectives and actions specified in the plan represented as adequate and appropriate response to the issues?

Objectives and actions in the plan do not represent an adequate or appropriate response to the primary issues

P

42

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps Local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS were meaningfully and fully involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS

VG

Local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS were fairly meaningfully and partly involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS

G

Local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS were only minimally involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS

F

10. “Were local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the management of the WHS?

Local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS were not involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS

P

Will be considered at the time of review

Plan identifies the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities and has taken these into account in decision making

VG

Plan identifies the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities but it is not apparent that these have been into account in decision making

G

There is limited attention given to the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities and little account taken of these in decision making

F

11. Does the plan take account of the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities living in or around the World Heritage site?

No apparent attention has been given to the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities

P

Many of the needs (forest related) of local people are not compatible with prevalent laws.

Will be considered at the time of review.

43

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps Plan identifies the needs and interests of other stakeholders and has taken these into account in decision making

VG

Plan identifies the needs and interests of other stakeholders but it is not apparent that these have been into account in decision making

G

There is limited attention given to the needs and interests of other stakeholders and little account taken of these in decision making

F

12. Does the plan take account of the needs and interests of other stakeholders involved in the World Heritage site?

No apparent attention has been given to the needs and interests of other stakeholders

P

Though the needs are not clearly identified, park management always gives considerable attention to the needs of stake holders. Needs of visitors and local people etc are clearly mentioned in Tourism and eco development sub-plan

Will be considered at the time of review.

Management actions specified in the plan can be clearly understood and provide a useful basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

VG

Management actions specified in the plan can generally be clearly understood and provide an adequate basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

G

Management actions are sometimes unclear or lacking in specificity making it difficult to use the plan as a basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

F

13. Does the plan provide adequate direction on management actions that should be undertaken in the World Heritage site?

Management actions are unclear or lacking in specificity making it very difficult to use the plan as a basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

P

14. Does the plan identify the priorities amongst strategies and actions in a way that

Clear priorities are indicated within the plan in a way that supports work programming and allocation of resources

VG

44

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps Priorities are generally indicated making their use for work programming and resource allocation adequate most of the time

G

Priorities are not clearly indicated but may be inferred for work programming and resource allocation

F

facilitates work programming and allocation of resources?

There is no indication of priorities in the plan so that the plan cannot be used for work programming and resource allocation

P

Worksheet for Tool 6: Design Assessment

Kaziranga provides an entire range of habitat from the floodplains to grassland to hill evergreen forest communities and is the largest patch

within the Brahmaputra floodplains. The site is intact enough to provide long term security to all range dependent species that cannot survive

outside the protected area. Also the species populations especially in the case of focal species are fairly large with functional food webs and

micro habitat availability. However, the annual flooding pattern, animal movement to higher areas towards the Karbi- Anglong hills to south and

provision of safe corridors have been an area of concern. The presence of the Highway (NH 37) along the southern boundary, villages and tea

gardens to the south and east impact the ecological integrity of the park adversely. These influences are being addressed through several

measures such as additions to park areas along the Highway to enable connectivity with the Karbi Anglong Hills, ecodevelopment and

awareness generation and special emphasis on anti-poaching camps and patrolling. The Sixth addition area to the north along the

Brahmaputra has added a considerable area to the park compensating for the reduction caused by bank erosion.

45

Ecological integrity

Biodiversity and Other Natural Values:

• Great Indian one horned rhinoceros • Tiger • Eastern swamp deer • Asiatic elephant • Bengal Florican • Resident and migratory avifauna • Assemblage of rare, endangered, threatened flora and fauna • Ongoing ecological process relating to dynamic floodplain activity

Design aspect

Strengths of World Heritage site design in relation to this aspect

Weaknesses of World Heritage site design in relation to this aspect

Comments and management action to be taken if required

Key habitats

Very functional tropical flood plain which make complex with deciduous-semi evergreen hill forest make the site as very good habitat for diverse flora and fauna.

Adjacent high grounds which provide key alternate habitat for some important wildlife are out side the site jurisdiction.

Size

Kaziranga National Park with its addition areas is sufficiently large. (859.42 km2)

Few very important adjacent high grounds are outside the site jurisdiction.

External interactions

Adjacent high ground are sparsely populated and under forest. Karbi Anglong WLS

Fringe area of the site is densely populated and most of the areas are under cultivation with considerable livestock population. Moreover, several tea gardens situated in the vicinity of the site pose potential threat of pesticide effects. Existing Chapories in 6th addition are good habitat but have been affected by domestic cattle

Regular livestock immunization programmes are taken by the site management. Judicial intervention is required to vacate the occupation in 6th addition areas. KNP has recently been included in the Tiger Reserve Network (see Box 6).

Connectivity There are few corridors exists which are well marked.

High human population around the corridor is major stress for management.

Regular awareness programmes are organized by the management.

46

Box 6: Declaration of Kaziranga Tiger Reserve in 2007

The Government of Assam declared the Kaziranga National Park along with Laokhowa Wildlife Sanctuary, Burachapori Wildlife Sanctuary, the six additions to Kaziranga National Park and adjoining Kukurakata, Bagser and Panbari Reserved Forests as a single conservation unit. After ‘in principle’ agreement to the proposal by the National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India due notification in the Assam Gazette dated 3rd August 2007, Kaziranga Tiger Reserve became the 29th Tiger Reserve of the country. Kaziranga is also a part of the Kaziranga - Meghalaya TCU (16) forms the integral part of a contiguous habitat of 18984 km2 (Wicramanayake et al 1998).

• Satellite imageries show contiguous forest patch from Kaziranga to Karbi- Anglong District to Golaghat Division [Garampani Wildlife Sanctuary & Nambar Wildlife Sanctuary]

• Corridors at Panbari, Kukarata and Haldibari to enter Karbi Anglong.

• Rhino distributed in a constricted grassland habitat vis a vis tiger which has greater home range and adaptability.

Landscape level conservation is possible as per TCU delineation, if restoration of contiguous habitat is done. This will facilitate interaction with tiger populations of Golaghat and Nameri - Pakke Tiger Reserve.

While the management of Kaziranga has been ‘rhino centric’ due emphasis will be given to tigers as they occur in relatively high density (16.8 tigers / 100 km2) (Karanth and Nichols 1998). With the inclusion of Kaziranga and adjoining forested areas as a Tiger Reserve, management of the entire assemblage of herbivores will receive a boost. Addressing the issues outside the Kaziranga National Park as part of the Tiger Reserve will help in maintaining the long term integrity of this World Heritage Site. The need for adopting landscape level conservation approach for maintaining the world heritage values of Kaziranga has also been highlighted in the UNESCO-EoH Project Team Paper “Opportunities and Challenges for Kaziranga National Park, Assam over the next Fifty Years” (http://www.enhancingheritage.net/docs_public.asp).

47

Community well-being

Cultural, economic, educational and other social values and other community/site issues relating to the wellbeing of the community are:

• Unique ‘Kakomai puja’ • Unique lifestyle of Karbi and Mishing tribes • Education, research and recreation opportunities • Reservoir of food and medicinal plant and breeding ground of fishes.

Design aspect Strengths of World Heritage site design in relation to this aspect

Weaknesses of World Heritage site design in relation to this aspect

Comments and management action to be taken if required

Key area

During flood local wetlands outside the site are replenished with fishes which acts a major sources of protein.

Illegal fishing and collection of food and medicinal plant in some area by the local people.

Regular deterrent actions and awareness campaign are organized. Massive eco-development drive is necessary.

Size

The site is compact with no human habitation inside the park

Nil

External interactions

Tourism provides inflow of new ideas and opportunities for local communities.

Yet to be apparent Impacts of foreign visitors may be assessed through a comprehensive socio-economic survey

Legal status and tenure

Wildlife (protection) Act provides a strong basis.

Lack of clarity and disobedience to wild life laws is a problem.

48

Management factors

Issues related to legal status, access, and boundary issues with neighbours:

• Protection of biodiversity • Habitat preservation and improvement • Livestock grazing control • Weed eradication • Grassland management • Animal health • Man animal conflict

Design aspect Strengths of World Heritage site design in relation to this aspect

Weaknesses of World Heritage site design in relation to this aspect

Comments and management action to be taken if required

Legal status and tenure

Prevalent act is adequate

Access points

Very few access point. Interior areas are connected for management operations.

Existing legal waterways close to the 6th addition areas may provide entry points into the park

Separate administrative unit is required for complete control over the area.

Neighbours

Northern and Western side is marked by natural features.

Southern boundary is common with villages in major part without any buffer area in between

49

Section 4: Inputs and Process Assessment

Worksheet 7a for Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Staff

While six personnel have finished formal training in terms of the PG Diploma and Certificate courses in Wildlife Management offered by the Wildlife Institute of India, the rest of the staff have been trained on the job with extensive field experience available to the management. The training requirements for staff includes census techniques, wildlife offence and forensics, GIS and ecodevelopment (See Box 3),

Level of Training Staff category Location

Required no. of staff

Current no. of staff

No. of trained

staff Type of training

required Poor Fair Good Very

good Comments/ Responses

Director Bokakhat 1 1 1 - Good

Divisional Forest Officer

Bokakhat 1 1 1 - Good

Supporting officer at Division Head Quarter

Bokakhat 4 4 3 - Good

Field Officer (Range)

Field HQ 7 7 1 Wildlife management

Good

Supporting Field staff

50

Post Sanctioned Available Total Vacancy Post Sanctioned Available Total Vacancy DCF/ FVO/ WLRO/ ACF 5 5 -- DR/ O.Peon 7 6 1

F. Ranger 7 6 1 Chdr./ G.M. 11 6 5

Dy. Ranger 7 7 -- Paniwalla 1 1 -

Game Keeper 3 2 1 Khansama 2 -- 2

Forester-I 45 37 8 Hd. Asstt. 1 -- 1

Forester-II 19 6 13 Accountant 1 - 1

Hd. G/Watcher 3 2 1 RCIA 1 - 1

Fgd/G.W. 270 217 53 U.D.Asstt. 3 -- 3

Boatman 63 58 5 LDA/R.Asstt. 7 7 ---

Hd. Mahout 1 - 1 St. Asstt. 1 1 -

Mahout 34 29 5 R.Keeper 1 1 -

Grass Cutter 34 13 21 Sweeper 3 -- 3

Tractor Driver 2 2 - Mali 3 2 1

Driver 15 10 5 Vety. F.Asstt. 1 - 1

MLD 6 3 3 Handiman 1 - 1

RT/Electrician 2 2 - Total 562 421 141

51

Worksheet 7b for Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Budget (2006-07)

The worksheet presents budgetary requirements for the heads of action given by the Management Plan (2003-2013).

Expenditure category Budget required (Rs.) Actual budget available (Rs.) Funding source(s) Comments

Control of Poaching 16780000 1710000 Centre and State Government

Measures during Flood 4510000 300000 --do--

Habitat Interventions 280000 409800 --do--

Infrastructure Development 19950000 900000 --do--

Boundary Demarcation 100000 0 --do--

Departmental Elephants 3000000 300000 --do--

MIS 1000000 0 --do--

Research 2800000 0 --do--

Livestock Immunisation 500000 145000 --do--

Man Animal Conflict 3150000 60000 --do--

Tourism 3100000 50000 --do--

Staff Amenities 10100000 0 --do--

Ecodevelopment 6200000 240000 --do--

Training 700000 0 --do--

Education and Awareness 500000 0 --do--

52

Section 5: Assessment of Management Process The management processes adopted for the site flow from the Management Plan (2003-2013) that follows the prescriptions and design form the Management Plan Manual (Sawarkar 2004). The plan objectives are devised keeping in mind the focal species, key habitat elements, research and recreation and the anthropogenic influences from the fringe village populations. The process of management activity is undertaken on the basis of the Annual Plan of Operation (APO) that provides details of the budgetary heads and activities identified and the quantum of work and resources requisitioned from the Federal and State Governments under several funding schemes. The plan has been approved by due process and is being implemented. Due to problems of funds shortfall some of the activities are partially undertaken as also some contingencies do require immediate measures that may decrease the funds available for plan activities. There are eleven theme plans that detail out activities relating to poaching, flood season measures, grazing and other biotic disturbances control, weed control, ranging patterns of wild animals, wetland management, grassland management, erosion, animal health surveillance, man-animal coexistence and infrastructure and communication.

Worksheet 8a for Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Management Structures and Systems

The World Heritage site has agreed and documented values and the management objectives fully reflect them

Very good

The World Heritage site has agreed and documented values, but these are only partially reflected in the management objectives

Good

The World Heritage site has agreed and documented values, but these are not reflected in the management objectives

Fair

1. World Heritage values Have values been identified and are these linked to management objectives? No values have been agreed for the World Heritage site Poor

53

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps An approved management plan exists and is being fully implemented

Very good

An approved management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because of funding constraints or other problems

Good

A plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being implemented

Fair

2. Management planning Is there a plan and is it being implemented?

There is no plan for managing the World Heritage site

Poor

Kaziranga NP management plan (2003-04 to 20012-13) is a Government approved document and being implemented. But due to fund problems some of the activities are partially taken.

Planning and decision making processes are excellent Very good

There are some planning and decision making processes in place but they could be better, either in terms of improved processes or actions completed

Good

There are some planning and decision making processes in place but they are either inadequate or they are not carried out

Fair

3. Planning systems Are the planning systems appropriate i.e. participation, consultation, review and updating?

Planning and decision making processes are deficient in most aspects

Poor

Considerable opportunities for adjacent landholders and stakeholders to influence management planning; and details of the schedule and process for periodic review and updating of the management plan exists.

Regular work plans exist, actions are monitored against planned targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed

Very good

Regular work plans exist and actions are monitored against planned targets, but many activities are not completed

Good

Regular work plans exist but activities are not monitored against the plan’s targets

Fair

4. Regular work plans Are there annual work plans or other planning tools?

No regular work plans exist Poor

Every year Annual Plan of Operation (APO) is prepared with the help of Management plan.

54

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and used for adaptive management

Very good

There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system of management activities but results are not systematically used for management

Good

There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation of management activities, but no overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results

Fair

5. Monitoring and evaluation Are management activities monitored against performance?

There is no monitoring and evaluation of management activities in the World Heritage site

Poor

Site managers can fully comply with all reporting needs and have all the necessary information for full and informative reporting

Very good

Site managers can fully comply with all reporting needs but do not have all the necessary information for full and informative reporting

Good

There is some reporting, but all reporting needs are not fulfilled and managers do not have all the necessary information on the site to allow full and informative reporting

Fair

6. Reporting Are all the reporting requirements of the World Heritage site fulfilled?

There is no reporting on the World Heritage site Poor

All reporting obligations are complied with

Equipment and facilities are well maintained and an equipment maintenance plan is being implemented

Very good

There is basic maintenance of equipment and facilities. If a maintenance plan exists it is not fully implemented.

Good

There is some ad hoc maintenance but a maintenance plan does not exist or is not implemented

Fair

7. Maintenance of equipment Is equipment adequately maintained?

There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities, and no maintenance plan

Poor

55

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Management infrastructure is excellent and appropriate for managing the site

Very good

Management infrastructure is adequate and generally appropriate for the site

Good

Management infrastructure is often inadequate and/or inappropriate for the site

Fair

8. Management Infrastructure Is management infrastructure (eg fire trails and fire towers) adequate for the needs of the site?

Management infrastructure is inadequate and/or inappropriate for the site

Poor

Staff facilities at the World Heritage site are good and aid the achievement of the objectives of the site

Very good

Staff facilities are not significantly constraining achievement of major objectives

Good

Inadequate staff facilities constrain achievement of some management objectives

Fair

9. Staff facilities Are the available facilities suitable for the management requirements of the site? Inadequate staff facilities mean that achievement of major

objectives is constrained Poor

Facilities could range from staff accommodation to offices, guard posts etc Most of the Anti-poaching camps are in dilapidated condition.

Staff directly participate in making decisions relating to management of the site at both site and management authority level

Very good

Staff directly contribute to some decisions relating to management

Good

Staff have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in the resulting decisions

Fair

10. Staff/ management communication Do staff have the opportunity to feed into management decisions?

There are no mechanisms for staff to have input into decisions relating to the management of the World Heritage site

Poor

56

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Provisions to ensure good personnel management are in place

Very good

Although some provisions for personnel management are in place these could be improved

Good

There are minimal provisions for good personnel management

Fair

11. Personnel management How well are staff managed? There are no provisions to ensure good personnel

management (e.g. staff appraisals, grievance procedures, promotion plans, insurance)

Poor

Staff training and skills are appropriate for the management needs of the site, and with anticipated future needs

Very good

Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to fully achieve the objectives of management

Good

Staff training and skills are low relative to the management needs of the site

Fair

12. Staff training Is staff adequately trained?

Staff lack the skills/training needed for effective site management

Poor

The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations

Very good

The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain

Good

There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol budget, staff management problems)

Fair

13. Law enforcement Does staff have the capacity to enforce legislation?

The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations

Poor

57

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Financial management is excellent and contributes to effective management of the site

Very good

Financial management is adequate but could be improved

Good

Financial management is poor and constrains effectiveness

Fair

14. Financial management Does the financial management system meet the critical management needs?

Financial management is poor and significantly undermines effectiveness of the World Heritage site (eg late release of funds for the financial year)

Poor

Resource Management Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively implemented

Very good

Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist but there are some problems in effectively implementing them

Good

Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist but there are major problems in implementing them effectively

Fair

15. Managing resources Are there management mechanisms in place to control inappropriate land uses and activities (e.g. poaching)?

There are no management mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the World Heritage site

Poor

58

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the World Heritage site is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is being updated

Very good

Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient for some areas of planning/decision making but further data gathering is not being carried out

Good

Some information is available on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the WH site, but this is insufficient to support planning and decision making

Fair

16. Resource inventory Is there enough information to manage the World Heritage site?

There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the World Heritage site

Poor

There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of surveys and research, which is relevant to management needs

Very good

There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed towards the needs of World Heritage site management

Good

There is some ad hoc survey and research work but it is not directed towards the needs of World Heritage site management.

Fair

17. Research Is there a programme of management-orientated survey and research work?

There is no research taking place in the World Heritage site Poor

Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are being fully implemented

Very good

Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are only being partially implemented

Good

Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are known but are not being implemented

Fair

18. Ecosystems and species Is the biodiversity of the World Heritage site adequately managed? Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and

species have not been assessed Poor

59

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are being substantially or fully implemented

Very good

Many requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are being implemented but some key issues may not be addressed

Good

Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are known but very few are being implemented

Fair

19. Cultural/ historical resource management Are the site’s cultural resources adequately managed? Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values

have not been assessed and/or active management is not being undertaken

Poor

Management and Tourism Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation

Very good

Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation but could be improved

Good

Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation

Fair

20. Visitor facilities Are visitor facilities (for tourists, pilgrims etc) adequate?

There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need

Poor

There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, and protect site values

Very good

There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain site values

Good

There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory matters

Fair

21. Commercial tourism Do commercial tour operators contribute to protected area management?

There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the protected area

Poor

60

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Implementation of visitor management policies and programmes is based on research into visitors’ needs and wants and the carrying capacity of the World Heritage site

Very good

Consideration has been given to the provision of visitor opportunities and policies and programmes to enhance visitor opportunities are being implemented

Good

Consideration has been given to the provision of visitor opportunities in terms of access to the World Heritage site or the diversity of available experiences but little or no action has been taken

Fair

22. Visitor opportunities Have plans been developed to provide visitors with the most appropriate access and diversity of experience when visiting the World Heritage site? No consideration has been given to the provision of visitor

opportunities in terms of access to the World Heritage site or the diversity of available experiences

Poor

There is a planned, implemented and effective education and awareness programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the World Heritage site

Very good

There is a planned education and awareness programme but there are still serious gaps either in the plan or in implementation

Good

There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme, but no overall planning for this

Fair

23. Education and awareness programme Is there a planned education programme?

There is no education and awareness programme

Poor

Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Very good

Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Good

Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Fair

24. Access Is visitor access sufficiently controlled?

Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) are ineffective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Poor

61

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Management and Communities/Neighbours

Local communities directly participate in all relevant management decisions for the site

Very good

Local communities directly contribute to some relevant management decisions but their involvement could be improved

Good

Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in decision-making

Fair

25. Local communities Do local communities resident in or near the World Heritage site have input to management decisions?

Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of the World Heritage site

Poor

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant management decisions for the site

Very good

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to making some relevant management decisions but their involvement could be improved

Good

Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in decision-making

Fair

26. Indigenous people Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident in or regularly using the site have input to management decisions?

Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the management of the site

Poor

62

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage site resources, are being implemented successfully

Very good

Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage site resources, are being implemented but could be improved

Good

Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage site resources, exist but are either inadequate or are not being implemented

Fair

27. Local, peoples welfare Are there programmes developed by the World Heritage managers which consider local people’s welfare whilst conserving the sites resources? There are no programmes in place which aim to enhance

local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare Poor

There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users, and substantial co-operation on management

Very good

There is contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users, but only some co-operation

Good

There is contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users but little or no cooperation

Fair

28. State and commercial neighbours Is there co-operation with neighbouring land/sea owners and users?

There is no contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users

Poor

Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist and are used whenever conflicts arise

Very good

Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist but are only partially effective

Good

Conflict resolution mechanisms exist, but are largely ineffective

Fair

29. Conflict resolution If conflicts between the World Heritage site and stakeholders arise, are mechanisms in place to help find solutions? No conflict resolution mechanisms exist Poor

Inability to compensate the affected people renders the mechanism partially ineffective.

63

Worksheet 8b for Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes - Summary

Management area Issue and rating Distribution of rating

Management structures and systems

1 World Heritage Values -VG 2. Management planning- G 3. Planning systems- G 4.Regular work plans- VG 5.Monitoring -VG 6. Reporting-G 7. Maintenance of equipment-G 8. Management infrastructure-G 9. Staff facilities-F 10. Management communication.-F 11. Personnel management-F 12. Staff training-F 13. Law enforcement-G 14. Financial management-G

P= 0

F=4

G=7

VG=3

Resource management

15. Managing resources-G 16. Resource inventory-G 17. Research-F 18. Ecosystem and species-G 19. Cultural management-G

P=0

F=1

G=4

VG=0

64

Management area Issue and rating Distribution of rating

Management and Tourism 20. Visitors facilities-G 21. Commercial tourism-G 22. Visitor opportunities.-G 23. Education and awareness-F 24. Access-VG

P=0

F=1

G=2

VG=1

Management and Communities /Neighbours

25. Local communities-F 26. Indigenous people-F 27. Local people welfare-F 28. State and commercial neighbours-G 29. Conflict resolution-F

P=0

F=4

G=1

VG-0

Total distribution of ranks- P=0 F=10 G=14 VG=4

65

Section 6: Outputs

The assessment undertaken as part of this worksheet is based on the analysis of budgetary requirements projected in the management plan

and the requisitions, sanctions and expenditures based on the theme plan budget heads. In the figure given in worksheet 9 the percentage of

actual expenditure incurred as against the projected Plan requirements are given for the period 2004-2007 indicating an average expenditure of

about 8% of Plan requirements. While funds for the Management of Kaziranga National Park are made available through Centrally Sponsored

Schemes (Development of National Park and Wildlife Sanctuaries, Project Elephant and Special Assistance), the State finances that are

primarily utilised for meeting salary expenditure.

66

Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation

Expenditure % of Plan Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

CNTRLPOC

MDFIN

FRASTRBOUNDRYDELPHNTS

MISRESRCH

LIVIMM

MACNFLTTURSMIN

TPSTAMNTS

ECODEV

TRNGEDUAW

RNS

Budget Items

Perc

enta

ge

2006-07 2005-062004-05 2003-04

CNTRLPOC: Control of Poaching MDF: Measures during Flood INFRASTR: Infrastructure Development BOUNDRY: Boundary Demarcation

DELPHNTS: Departmental Elephants

MIS: Management Information System

RESRCH: Research LIVIMM: Livestock Immunisation

MACNFLT: Man Animal Conflict TURSMINTP: Tourism and Interpretation

STAMNTS: Staff Amenities ECODEV: Ecodevelopment

TRNG: Training EDUAWRNS: Education and Awareness

67

Worksheet for Tool 10: Assessing Outputs (2005-2006)

Indicator Work output target Performance Performance/level in

previous year Notes

Boundary survey and demarcation

Kilometres covered -20

0 km 10 Work has not been progressed due to inadequate availability of funds

Camps (Construction, repair)

Numbers of camps- 10

8 12 Most of the camps are in dilapidated condition.

Equipment Procurement

Rifle-25 Gun-20 Binoculars-40 Search light-20 Solar lighting system-30 Night vision-10 Computer-0 GPS-0

0 0 0 2 0 0 3 2

0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0

Nature and importance of the site require up gradation / new arms. Procurement of important items- Night Vision and Binoculars have not commenced due to fund constraints

Vehicle procurement

Gypsy-4 Country-boat-10 Mechanized boat -2 Mini truck-0

Excavator-1

4 10 1 1 0

0 15 1 0 0

Mobility is one of the important anti-poaching activity.

68

Indicator Work output target Performance Performance/level in previous year

Notes

Construction of high grounds (raised platform and roads)

Number-2.5 km 2.5 0 Old high grounds require repair and construction of more high grounds as per planned activity not commenced.

Construction/repair of Rumble strips/ Barriers

Number-5 5 5 Very important during Monsoon

Construction of Bridges/ Culverts/causeway

Number-16 16 4 This is very important for routine anti-poaching activities. Old wooden bridges should be replaced by RCC, where possible.

Construction of residences for staff and officers

Number-10 51 2 Special grant received for construction of residences

Animal health No. of livestock immunized-12000

9,000 13,000 This includes health maintenance of departmental elephant.

Grassland management No. of fire lines-25 Habitat manipulation-10 ha.

25 2

0 2

Controlled Burning requires more scientific approach for management of grasslands.

69

Indicator Work output target Performance Performance/level in previous year

Notes

Research Vehicle-1 Equipment-Rs,100000

0 0 Presently research activities are confined to some studies carried out by individuals and organizations for academic interest only.

Power-fence

Km-2 0 5 Certain strategic location on the east and west of the site may help in reducing the stray incidents of rhinoceros

Tourism facilities

Bathrooms/Toilet-4 2 1

70

Section 7: Outcomes

Worksheet 11a for Tool 11: Plan for Monitoring the Outcomes of Management

Indicator : Population of rhino, wild buffalo, elephant, tiger, swamp deer, raptors (see Box 7)

Major Site Values assessed by the indicator : Biodiversity

Justification for selection : Assemblage of herbivores is one of the main features of Kaziranga and occupy

most of the habitats available within the park thereby indicating health of the

ecosystem as well as trends with respect to recruitment and mortality.

Indicator : Extent, productivity and structure of short grasslands

Major site Value assessed by the indicator : Other natural values

Justification of selection : Herbivore population and endangered species such as the Bengal Florican are

directly dependent on palatable short grasses for shelter and food resources.

Integrity in terms of invasive species as well as incursion of trees into grasslands

also will be monitored

71

The table below provides an overview of the population of focal species

Population Species

1991 1993 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2005 2006 RHINO 1129 1164 - 1552 - - - -- 1855

ELEPHANT - 1094 945 - - - 1048 1246 --

TIGER - 72 80 - 86 - - -- --

SWAMP DEER - - - 398 468 - - -- --

WILD BUFFALO - - - 1192 - 1431 - -- --

72

Box 7: Raptor community of Kaziranga National Park, Assam

Raptors or Birds of Prey comprise hawks, eagles, vultures, falcons (diurnally active) and owls (mostly nocturnal). Most raptor species exhibit use of large areas and a diversity of habitat types compared with many other animal groups, hence they are links among habitats and they connect ecosystems across the landscapes. They are important components of ecological food webs, where they stand at the top most position. A monitoring of diurnal raptors was initiated to determine relative abundance and diversity in different habitats, under the UNESCO-IUCN Project ‘Enhancing Our Heritage’ during 2005-2006 in Kaziranga National Park (KNP). Road counts were conducted during clear weather conditions. Approximately 800 km of road length in four ranges of KNP i.e. Agratoli, Kohora, Bagori and Burapahar were covered between December 2005 and April 2006. The road counts were made by two person team and the observations were made from 0700 h to near sunset. A total of 27 raptor species were recorded from KNP during 2005-2006 (Annexure 2), 22 species were observed in winter and 13 in summer. The presence of more species of raptors in winter was due to influx of migratory raptors. In winter, Grey-headed Fish Eagle (Plate 1) was the dominant species followed by Pallas's Fish Eagle, Short-toed Eagle, Crested Serpent Eagle, Changeable Hawk Eagle and Osprey whereas in summer Grey-headed Fish Eagle was again the dominant species followed by Crested Serpent Eagle, Changeable Hawk Eagle, Pallas's Fish Eagle, Oriental Honey Buzzard, and Short-toed Eagle. A large communal roost of Short-toed Eagle (20 birds) was located from the Aarimora grassland in Agratoli Range of the park. Of the 8 globally threatened raptors recorded from the park, 6 breed here (Annexure 2). In winter, species richness was recorded to be high in Bagori (16 spp.) followed by Agratoli (15 spp.), Kohora (11 spp.) and Burapahar (6 spp.) whereas in summer the raptor species richness was high again in Bagori (13 spp.) followed by Kohora (12 spp.), Agratoli (10 spp.) and Burapahar (7 spp.).

The mosaic of ecosystems in the Kaziranga National Park is responsible for its rich raptor diversity. In winter, maximum number of raptors were supported by grasslands (54%) followed by wetlands (31%) and woodlands (15%) whereas wetlands supported maximum numbers of raptors in summer (42%) followed by woodland (29%) and grasslands (28%).

As top predators, raptors are key species for enhancing the understanding on ecosystem functioning. Changes in their status can reflect changes in the availability of their prey species, including population declines of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects. Changes in raptor status also can be an indicator of more subtle detrimental environmental changes such as chemical contamination occurring in the ecosystem.

Plate1. Grey-headed Fish

Eagle is an indicator of the health of wetland ecosystem

73

Minimum integrity

thresholds Confidence level

of threshold Monitoring

activity Monitoring protocol

Cost and

funding source Management implications

Current:

Census-Direct block count for herbivore after every 6 years.

Rs.3,00,000/-, Government

Help the management to take decision for necessary intervention for population declines and monitoring trends

Rhino (946 counted in 1984)

Total count

New:

1.Population estimation after every 3 years 2. yearly for select blocks

Rs.4,00,000/-, Government

Same as above

Current:

Pugmark method Rs.4,00,000/-, Government

Same as above Tiger (80 counted in 1997)

Total count (pugmark)

New:

New 4 stage estimation initiated with the WII and Project Tiger

Rs,4,00,000/- Government

Same as above

Wild buffalo (1192 counted in 1999)

Total count Current: Same as rhino (also proposed for every 3 yrs) Rs 2,00,000/- Government

Same as above

Elephants (1094 counted in 1993)

Total count Current: New:

Every year at local level Every three years for entire area

Rs 3,00,000/- Government

Same as above

Swamp Deer (398 counted in 1998)

Total count Current: New:

Every year at local level Every three years for entire area

Rs 1,50,000/- Government

Same as above

Short grasslands High Regular monitoring for controlled burning and seasonal use by herbivores and Periodic monitoring through Land cover mapping and productivity (every five years)

Rs 5,00,000 (every five years) Government

Worksheet 11b for Tool 11: Assessment of Outcomes of Management

While it has not been possible to acquire age and sex classification details through all the census efforts in the past for all the species it is especially important to monitor the recruitment rates and sex ratios for all the five major species taken up as indicators of biodiversity. However as these are not available at the present for all the species the minimum integrity thresholds are considered as the population closest to the

74

inscription as a world heritage site in 1985. Also regular monitoring of avifaunal elements of the biodiversity including species such as Bengal Florican and water fowl congregations would provide better understanding of the outcomes of management interventions.

Indicator Minimum Integrity

Threshold

Status of indicator in relation to threshold Rating

Management interventions: urgency and details of actions

Rhino 940 1855 counted in 2006

Tiger 80 86 counted in 2000

Wild buffalo

1190

1431 counted in 2001

Elephant

1090

1246 counted in 2005

Swamp deer

390

468 counted in 2000

Regular protection measures, habitat manipulation are being followed. High floods render all wild animals vulnerable and patrolling and antipoaching measures are stepped up during this period. Overall the long term viability of these indicators is ensured in Kaziranga

Good and Condition is improving

Developing concern and Condition is unchanged

Good and Condition is unchanged

75

Worksheet for Tool 12: Achievement of Principal Management Objectives Assessment

Principal Management Objective: To maintain and wherever necessary restore the demographic features relating to the populations of all

endangered , endemic, vulnerable, rare species of animals and plants with special focus on Rhino, Tiger and their habitat

Desired outcomes: Increase or maintenance of all wild animal to optimal level and maintenance and improvement of the habitat.

Performance assessment Performance indicators and target Data and methods of collection Assessment of indicator in relation to target

Breeding success of

herbivores.

Recruitment of young and

population from last

census.

Direct or block count method for

most of the herbivores.

All major herbivore populations have shown an

increase in numbers in the subsequent census

Breeding success of

carnivores.

Recruitment of young and

population from last

census.

Pugmark census and new

method initiated by WII and

Project Tiger.

All major carnivore populations have shown an

increase in subsequent census

76

Principal Management Objective: To maintain and wherever necessary restore the physical integrity of the area with special considerations to the flooding pattern. Desired outcomes: losses accruing from bank erosion along the Brahmaputra are compensated for by incorporating areas containing suitable habitat

Performance assessment Performance indicators and target Data and methods of collection Assessment of indicator in relation to target

Area available to wild animals

Increase in effective area available for wild animals

Departmental records 1st and 6th Addition areas (totalling 420.29 km2) included within park and available for wild animals. 2nd-5th Additions are in the process of finalization (totalling 9.2 km2)

Principal Management Objective: To enhance the quality of educational, recreational and wilderness experience given to the general public. Desired outcomes: Park visitors are provided with quality educational, recreational and interpretation facilities and opportunities

Performance assessment Performance indicators and target Data and methods of collection Assessment of indicator in relation to target

Visitor satisfaction Higher level of reported satisfaction with wildlife viewing opportunities and interpretation facilities

Questionnaire surveys administered to tourists

The number of tourists visiting Kaziranga has shown a steady increase over the years, however a continuous programme of monitoring visitor satisfaction is not currently in place. A new interpretation facility that was inaugurated during the Centenary Celebrations in 2005 is being upgraded (see Box 8).

77

Box 8: Kaziranga Centenary Celebrations (1905-2005)

Kaziranga National Park situated in the floodplains of mighty river Brahamaputra in central Assam, is renowned world over and epitomises the richness of biodiversity of not only Assam but the whole of the North-Eastern India. The Park has a long and luminous history of conservation, and right from its inception in 1905 till date, it has become a symbol of dedication and commitment of the people who protect and preserve its rich biological heritage.

A mega event named “Kaziranga Centenary Celebration” was organized from 11th to 17th February 2005 for showcasing the rich natural and cultural heritage of the region. The objective was to organize a series of consultations, debates, exhibitions, studies and exchanges with Kaziranga acting as a gateway for conservation of the unique bio-diversity of North East India.

The event witnessed a large assemblage of diverse group of participants including apex government functionaries representing legislature, executive and judiciary both from the state government as well as the Union of India, wildlife conservationists, travel writers, nature lovers and scientific community from across the globe. They examined persistent challenges, emerging concerns and fresh insights on wildlife protection initiatives along with traditional bonding between man and animal to engender understanding for nature conservation.

Apart from cultural events, the national and international experts had brainstorming sessions covering: (i) Grassland Management; (ii) Man-Animal coexistence; (iii) Nature-Tourism; (iv) Avifaunal diversity and its conservation and (v) Vision Kaziranga: Beyond 2005.

The UNESCO-IUCN Project Team presented papers on “Opportunities and Challenges for Kaziranga National Park, Assam over the next Fifty Years” and “Tall all Grasslands in Kaziranga National Park: Management Concerns and Conservation Perspective”.

A special tribute function Shraddharghya - ‘A salute to the Sentinels of Kaziranga’ was organized at Centenary Convention Center, Kaziranga, remembering and felicitating all those starting from Lady Curzon to the present pioneers from civil society, local communities, frontline forest staff making Kaziranga a safe Park for wild animals.

78

Principal Management Objective: To identify research priorities and implement such programmes to establish and create opportunities for enhancing management capabilities and knowledge of wildlife science Desired outcomes: Higher number of studies relating to various aspects of species diversity, abundance and habitat availability and use and enhanced information and training for the park staff.

Performance assessment

Performance indicators and target

Data and methods of collection Assessment of indicator in relation to target

Research Number of research studies undertaken within park

Departmental records and research reports

Over 15 research studies have been undertaken within the park including one doctoral study and two MSc dissertations. The park has a full time Research Officer appointed, however research facilities such as GIS based facilities and lab equipment are not available

Training Number of personnel receiving training

Departmental records While six persons among the existing staff have received formal training in wildlife management the rest of the staff have been exposed intermittently to several aspects of population and habitat management.

Principal Management Objective: Consistent with the above four objectives, in the zone of influence with sensitivity to cultural and economic well being of the communities and reduce the dependence on forest based resources. Desired outcomes:

Performance assessment

Performance indicators and target

Data and methods of collection Assessment of indicator in relation to target

Dependence of local communities on forest based resources among the 41 adjoining villages

Reduced dependence on forest based resources and increased access to alternatives

Departmental records and surveys

The marginal dependency on fish, fuel wood, fodder and NTFPs has not declined significantly due to lack of access to purchased fuels and other alternatives. However additional income sources have been developed from income generation from tourism by way of home stay programmes and vehicles engaged in tourism activities.

79

References Barua, M. & P. Sharma (1999), Birds of Kaziranga National Park, India, Forktail 15: 47–60. Champion H. G., Seth H. K., (1968) Forest Types of India, Manager of Publications, Government Press, New Delhi. Kushwaha, S.P.S. (1997) Land Mass Dynamics and Rhino habitat suitability in Kaziranga National Park. Indian Institute of Remote Sensing.

Dehra Dun. Muley Parag D. (2001) Genetic and Morphometric Studies to Differentiate between wild and domestic Asian Water Buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis)

and their hybrids in Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Sawarkar V. B., (1995) A manual for Planning Wildlife Management in Protected Areas and Managed Forests, Wildlife Institute of India,

DehraDun. Vattakkavan J., Vasu, N.K., Varma, S. Gureja, N. and Aiyadurai, A. (2002). Silent Stranglers: Eradication of Mimosa in Kaziranga National

Park, Assam. Wildlife Trust of India. New Delhi.

80

ANNEXURE 1 List of water birds recorded during 2005-2006 from Kaziranga National Park. (* denotes globally threatened species according to

IUCN 2007 and √ denotes presence of species in the respective Range of KNP)

S.No. Common name Scientific name Bagori Range

Kohora Range

Agratoli Range

Burapahar Range

1 Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis √2 Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus √ 3 Spot-billed Pelican* Pelecanus philippensis √ √ √4 Little Cormorant Phalacrocorax niger √ √ √ √5 Indian Shag Phalacrocorax

fuscicollis √ √ √

6 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo √ √ √7 Darter * Anhinga melanogaster √ √ √ √8 Little Egret Egretta garzetta √ √ √ √9 Purple Heron Ardea purpurea √ √ √

10 Grey Heron Ardea cinerea √ √ √11 Large Egret Casmerodius albus √ √ √ √12 Median Egret Mesophoyx intermedia √ √ √ √13 Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis √ √14 Indian Pond-Heron Ardeola grayii √ √ √ √15 Asian Openbill-Stork Anastomus oscitans √ √ √ √16 White-necked Stork Ciconia episcopus √17 Black-necked Stork* Ephippiorhynchus

asiaticus √ √ √ √

18 Lesser Adjutant-Stork* Leptoptilos javanicus √ √ √ √19 Oriental White Ibis* Threskiornis

melanocephalus √

81

S.No. Common name Scientific name Bagori Range

Kohora Range

Agratoli Range

Burapahar Range

20 Lesser Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna javanica √ √ √ √21 Greylag Goose Anser anser √22 Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus √23 Brahminy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea √ √ √24 Cotton Teal Nettapus

coromandelianus √

25 Gadwall Anas strepera √ √ √ √26 Falcated Duck* Anas falcata √27 Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope √ √ √28 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos √ √ √ √29 Spot-billed Duck Anas poecilorhyncha √ √ √ √30 Northern Shoveller Anas clypeata √ √31 Northern Pintail Anas acuta √ √ √ √32 Common Teal Anas crecca √ √ √ √33 Common Pochard Aythya ferina √ √ √34 Ferruginous Pochard* Aythya nyroca √ √35 Red-crested Pochard Rhodonessa rufina √36 Tufted Pochard Aythya fuligula √37 Swamp Francolin* Francolinus gularis √ √ √ √38 Purple Moorhen Porphyrio porphyrio √39 Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus √ √40 Common Coot Fulica atra √41 Pheasant-tailed Jacana Hydrophasianus

chirurgus √ √

42 Bronze-winged Jacana Metopidius indicus √ √ √43 Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus √ √ √

82

S.No. Common name Scientific name Bagori Range

Kohora Range

Agratoli Range

Burapahar Range

44 River Lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii √45 Grey-headed Lapwing Vanellus cinereus √ √46 Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus √ √ √47 Little Tern Sterna albifrons √ 48 River Tern Sterna aurantia √ √ √49 Stork-billed Kingfisher Halcyon capensis √ √ √

83

Annexure 2 List of raptor species recorded from the Kaziranga National Park during 2005-2006.

SN Species Name Scientific Name Status IUCN Category

1 Osprey Pandion haliaetus Local migratory

2 Pallas's Fish Eagle Haliaeetus leucoryphus Resident Vulnerable 3 Grey-headed Fish Eagle Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus Resident Near Threatened

4 White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis Resident Critically Endangered

5 Slender-billed Vulture Gyps tenuirostris Resident Critically Endangered

6 Euraisn Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus Local Migratory

7 Red-headed Vulture Sarcogyps calvus Resident Critically Endangered

8 Short-toed Snake Eagle Circaetus gallicus Resident 9 Crested Serpent Eagle Spilornis cheela Resident

10 Black Eagle Ictinaetus malayensis Local migratory

11 Eurasian Marsh Harrier C. aeruginosus Migratory 12 Eastern Marsh Harrier Circus spilonotus Migratory 13 Pied Harrier C. melanoleucos Migratory 14 Hen Harrier C. cyaneus Migratory 15 Montagu's Harrier C. pygargus Migratory 16 Shikra Accipiter badius Resident 17 Oriental Honey Buzzard Pernis ptilohyncus Resident

84

SN Species Name Scientific Name Status IUCN Category 18 Common Buzzard Buteo buteo Migratory 19 Indian Spotted Eagle Aquila hestata Resident Vulnerable 20 Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga Migratory Vulnerable 21 Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis Migratory 22 Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca Migratory Vulnerable 23 Rufous-bellied Eagle Hieraaetus kienerii Resident 24 Changeable Hawk Eagle Spizaetus cirrhatus Resident 25 Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Migratory 26 Peregrine Falco peregrinus Migratory 27 Pied Falconet Microhierax melanoleucos Resident