Project Tiger Directorate Ministry of Environment & Forests Government of India Tkgk¡ gS gfj;kyh A ogk¡ gS [kq'kgkyh AA Review of Tiger Reserve Assessment Reports Prepared by International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)
34
Embed
Review of Tiger Reserve Assessment Reports - IUCNcmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/report_1_reviewoftrassessmentreport_1.pdfReview of Tiger Reserve Assessment Reports Prepared by ... Sunderbans
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Project Tiger DirectorateMinistry of Environment & Forests
Government of India
Tkgk¡ gS gfj;kyh A
ogk¡ gS [kq'kgkyh AA
Review of Tiger Reserve
Assessment Reports
Prepared by
International Union forConservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)
(Chhattishgarh) and Sariska (Rajasthan) which are at considerable risk and require immediate
remedial action.
A number of recommendations have been made for enhancing the MEAF evaluation
parameters and methodology for future assessments. In essence, these relate to
(a) providing contextual narrative with scoring to avoid ambiguity and misinterpretation;
(b) refinements to the MEAF Review Fields to accommodate reviewer’s comments;
(c) inclusion of Review Fields to assess cross-border issues; (d) standardization of the evaluation
procedures and providing clear guidelines to the monitors; and (e) full use of Strengths,
Weakness, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis. The evaluation process at the Reserve
level should involve all stakeholders, and should take into account the actual tiger population.
The results of the survey are valuable, and should be shared with the managers as lessons
learnt, to improve the conditions of the Reserves through adaptive management, particularly
in those Reserves that are at immediate risk. The results should also be used by the Reserves
in their regular reporting structures to the Project Tiger Directorate.
With further standardization and minimal expansion, the MEAF toolkit could become the
backbone of a regular and credible assessment programme for the Tiger Reserves in India.
The Reserve Managers should incorporate in their annual plans future management
effectiveness assessments. Where the results show the need for more information, the
next assessment should refocus on designing clearer criteria to capture such information.
For those seeking to save the wild tigers, tiger conservation in India has been the touchstone.
Both the Project Tiger and the Government of India should be commended for encouraging
independent evaluations and subsequent peer reviews of the current management of the
Tiger Reserves in a country that now holds the key to the future of tigers in the wild.
These conservation efforts must continue to be supported through adequate resources,
adaptive management and a strong political will. It also bears mention that India is one of
the first countries in Asia that has attempted to adopt the WCPA Management Effectiveness
Assessment Framework to its system of protected areas.
iv
1
Project TigerProject Tiger1 was launched on April 1,1973,
based on the recommendations of a Special
Task Force of the Indian Board for Wildlife.
Initially, the project included nine Tiger
Reserves, covering an area of
16,339 km2 with a population of 268 tigers,
which has now increased to 28 Tiger
Reserves, distributed in 17 States in India
and encompassing 37,761 km2 of land with
an estimated population of 1,498 tigers. The
land area under reference amounts to
1.14% of the total geographical area of the
country.
The Project Tiger seeks to ensure a viable
population of tiger in India for “scientific,
economic, aesthetic, cultural and ecological
values and to preserve for all time, areas of
biological importance as a natural heritage
for the benefit, education and enjoyment of
the people”. Towards this end, the main
activities of the Project include, inter alia,
wildlife management, protection measures
and site specific eco-development to
reduce the dependency of local communities
on tiger reserve resources. With the current
population of tigers, this project holds the
most important tiger gene pool in the
country, together with biodiversity-rich
ecosystems and habitats for wildlife.
Project Tiger has a holistic ecosystem
approach. Though the main focus is on the
flagship species tiger, the project strives to
maintain the stability of ecosystems by also
supporting abundant prey populations. This
1 Project Tiger is an initiative of the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.More details are available @ http://projecttiger.nic.in/
I. Background
is essential to ensure an ecologically viable
population of tiger, which is at the ‘apex’ of
the ecological food chain.
Assessment of theImpacts of the ProjectIn order to assess the impact and overall
contribution of the Project Tiger, an
independent evaluation of Tiger Reserves
was launched in July 2004 through national
experts selected for their professional
background, relevant experience and
absence of conflicts of interest
(Annexure-I). The assessment guidelines
were developed by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of
India.
In all, 45 parameters have been used to
assess the evaluation elements pertaining to
planning, inputs, processes and outputs
in each Tiger Reserve (Annexure-II). The
scoring criteria on each individual parameter
have been standardized in the methodology
to reduce subjectivity of the evaluation and
are assessed quantitatively to arrive at a
composite score for each Reserve. The
composite score is then assessed on a scale
of 4 grades: Very Good, Good,
Satisfactory and Poor.
Panna Tiger Reserve: Pushp K. Jain
2
3
These parameters are meant to assess the
management effectiveness of each Reserve
and have been adapted to the Indian
context from the Management
Effectiveness Assessment Framework
(MEAF) provided by the World Commission
on Protected Areas (WCPA). The elements
of evaluation vis-a-vis percentage
weighting and criteria are outlined below:
Review AssignmentIUCN - the World Conservation Union, Asia
Regional Office, was requested by the
Government of India to provide an
independent review of these Tiger Reserve
assessment reports. Accordingly, the
Director of Project Tiger, Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of
India provided 28 Tiger Reserve assessment
reports to IUCN for external peer review
(see Table 2). These reports range in
length from 3 to 12 pages and some also
include general comments on management
effectiveness. At
the request of the
Project Tiger, the
focus of this
external review is
to provide:
Comments on the compliance of criteria
used for evaluating reserves.
Observations on the plausibility of the
overall results.
Evaluation Planning Inputs Process Output
Weighting 16% 15% 50% 19%
Criteria 5 9 21 10
Focus of evaluation Appropriateness Resources Efficiency Effectiveness
Nagarjuna Srisailam Tiger Reserve: B.C. Choudhury
4
Observations on the methodology
followed; and
Recommendations on the future use of
MEAF for Tiger Reserves in India.
MethodologyIUCN used its in-house expertise to review
the 28 reports by engaging Dr. Keith Williams
(Head, Regional Protected Areas
Programme) and Dr. Ranjith Mahindapala
(Deputy Regional Programme Coordinator).
Additionally, it sought technical advice from
its network of experts, in particular the
following:
Dr John Seidensticker, Senior Scientist,
Smithsonian’s National Zoological Park &
Chairman, Save the Tiger Fund Council,
together with his colleagues, Dr Brian
Gratwicke (Assistant Director, Save the
Tiger Fund) and Dr Matt Birnbaum
(Head, Programme Evaluations, National
Fish & Wildlife Foundation);
Dr Jose Courrau, PA management
specialist and post-doctorate fellow
under Dr Marc Hockings (Senior Lecturer,
School of Natural and Rural Systems
Management, University of Queensland,
Australia);
Mr. Moses Mapesa, Executive Director of
the Uganda Wildlife Authority and
member of the Management
Effectiveness Task Force; and
Dr William Schaedla, Ecologist &
Conservation Biologist, WildAid Asia.
Namdapha Tiger Reserve: S. Sathyakumar
5
The following review findings are reported
under four categories, as below:
1. Comments on the compliance of criteria
used for evaluating reserves.
2. Observations on the plausibility of the
overall results.
3. Observations on the methodology
followed; and
4. Recommendations on the future use of
MEAF for Tiger Reserves in India.
A. Comments on thecompliance of criteriaused for evaluating thereservesIntroductory commentsSince the early 1990s, Protected Area
management authorities have experimented
with methodologies to assess the
management effectiveness of protected
areas, adapted to regional or local areas
and conditions. The need for a
standardized approach for PA evaluation
was addressed by the World Commission on
Protected Areas (WCPA) through the
development of an evaluation framework
allowing specific evaluation methodologies
to be designed within a consistent overall
approach (Hockings, 2003)2. This
development of the Management
Effectiveness Assessment Framework
(MEAF) over a period of several years, took
into cognizance the design issues relating
to both individual sites and to protected
area systems, appropriateness of
II. Review Findings
management systems and processes, and
delivery of protected area objectives. In
essence, the evaluations were centered on
the following criteria (see Hockings et.al.,
2000)3:
Context - to provide the protected
area’s current status and importance
and the threats and opportunities that
are affecting it;
Planning - to provide an analysis on
the appropriateness of national
protected area policies, plans for
protected area systems, etc.
Input - to provide an insight into the
adequacy of resources and the
standards of management systems,
2 Hockings, M (2003) Systems for Assessing the Effectiveness of Management in Protected Areas; Bio-Science; 53 (9); 823-8323 Hockings, M, N Dudley & S Stolton (2000) The WCPA Management effectiveness framework - where to from here?; In:Design and Management of Protected Areas”; Proceedings of the Conference on Beyond the Trees; Bangkok, Thailand,November, 2000
Kalakad Tiger Reserve: Sushma H.S.
6
Process - to examine the adequacy of
management processes that can be
assessed through issues such as day-
to-day maintenance and the adequacy
of approaches to local communities;
Output - to ensure whether the PA
management has reached the targets
and objectives established through a
management plan, national plans and
ultimately the aims of the IUCN
category of the protected area; and
Outcome - to grasp long-term effects
and monitoring of the condition of
biological and cultural resources of the
site/system, socio-economic aspects of
use and impacts of the site/system’s
management on local communities.
In order to evaluate management
effectiveness in a holistic fashion,
methodologies incorporating all of the
above elements are needed. As Hockings et
al. (2000) have indicated each type of
evaluation has a different focus; they are
complementary rather than alternative
approaches to evaluating management
effectiveness. The framework for
assessment is given in Table 1.
Table 1: Framework for assessingmanagement effectiveness ofProtected Areas Systems
Source: Hockings et al., (2000)
Criteria used for TigerReserve Assessments, IndiaThe criteria used for the assessment are
based on the WCPA’s Management
Effectiveness Assessment Framework
(MEAF) and have been adapted to the
Elements ofevaluation
Explanation
Criteria thatareassessed
Focus ofevaluation
Context
Where arewe now?Assessmentofimportance,threats andpolicyenvironment
SignificanceThreatsVulnerabilityNationalpolicy
Status
Planning
Where do wewant to be?Assessment ofPA design andplanning
4 The importance of accurate tiger census data needs to be emphasized here, as it is a pivotal requirement for assessments. Anexcerpt from Sariska evaluation, reproduced here, amply demonstrates this. “...No cubs were reported since 2002. The figureshave faithfully been recorded while in reality the tigers were being poached with impunity. This leads to only one conclusion-extreme neglect and unethical stewardship.”
B. Observations on theplausibility of theoverall resultsThe scores given by the evaluators are
shown in the table below:
Table 2:
Tiger Reserves, Evaluators and Scores
Review Findings
(a) The findings of the evaluators were
generally plausible, but not always
consistent with one another.
Discrepancies apparently arose as a
result of variation in the ways different
evaluators interpreted their mandate.
Some saw it fit to address evaluations
in the light of tiger census data4, while
others restricted their evaluations more
to straightforward scoring of reserves’
management activities. They simply
evaluated the various fields on
encroachment, monitoring, tourism,
restoration, etc. without much
discussion of
tiger presence
or absence.
Some of these
aspects are
given below:
The Sariska
tiger reserve
received a
‘Poor1 rating
(61) with highly
critical
commentary
from the
evaluator in
light of the
apparent
extirpation of
tigers in this
reserve.
Indravati also received a ‘Poor’
rating (70), and an unfavourable
commentary. In this case, however,
the low score was derived largely
from the fact that the reserve is
currently held beyond the control of
Forest Department authorities due
to naxalite separatist activities.
According to the evaluators, this
S.No. Reserve Evaluator(s) Score1. Sariska V B Sawarkar 612. Indravati A S Negi and S K Chakrabarti 703. Ranthambhor V B Sawarkar 894. Namdapha M K Ranjitsinh 955. Nagarjun/Srisailam A S Negi and S K Chakrabarti 986. Valmiki M K Naidu and S K Patnaik 1057. Pakke V B Sawarkar 1068. Manas M K Ranjitsinh and V B Sawarkar 1069. Bhadra P K Mishra and M G Gogate 10610. Kalakad P K Mishra and M G Gogate 10911. Nameri V B Sawarkar 11012. Dampha M K Ranjitsinh 12113. Buxa V B Sawarkar 12414. Pench (Maharashtra) A S Negi 12515. Rajiv Gandhi P K Mishra and M G Gogate 12616. Bandhavgarh A S Negi and S K Chakrabarti 12717. Bori-Satpura A S Negi and S K Chakrabarti 12818. Periyar P K Mishra and M G Gogate 12919. Tadoba-Andhari A S Negi 13520. Panna A S Negi & S K Chakrabarti 13521. Melghat A S Negi 13722. Simlipal A S Negi and S K Chakrabarti 14023. Palamau M K Naidu and S K Patnaik 14124. Pench (Madhya Pradesh) A S Negi and S K Chakrabarti 14425. Sunderbans V B Sawarkar and M K Ranjitsinh 15026. Corbett M K Naidu and S K Patnaik 15227. Dudhwa M K Naidu and S K Patnaik 15428. Kanha A S Negi and S K Chakrabarti 163
10
situation makes planned
management “not possible” and
census figures “unverifiable.” The
evaluators were unable to fully
evaluate the reserve due to
external conditions; yet marks have
been allocated.
On the other end of the spectrum,
Palamau got a ‘Very Good’ rating
(141), in spite of issues involving
separatists and poor law and order
situation, encroachers, and
declining tiger numbers. The
favourable evaluation is terse and
carries little explanatory information.
However, it is understandable given
Palamau’s strong ongoing community
development, outreach, and
enforcement activities.
Dudhwa also ranked a high ‘Good’
rating (154) on the strength of its
well-organized and
coherent management in spite of
some issues raised by one of our
reviewers.
All of this notwithstanding, evaluation results
from the current 28 reports are
plausible in the light of different
evaluator interpretations of the MEAF
methodology.
(b) Some reports have included a brief
analysis of strengths and
weaknesses and in one case an
analysis of opportunities and
threats has been provided. An
analysis is critical in gaining an
appreciation of an assessment and
should be done for each evaluation
report.
(c) Analysis of the results also indicate the
following:
It appears that, whilst there seems
to be management effectiveness at
some level, the management
outcome, i.e. the maintenance of a
healthy tiger population, is yet
clearly not shown. A case in point is
the Sariska Reserve (60 points) with
an outcome failure. The results
indicate that reserves with less than
about 110 points are at high risk of
failure.
The results from the evaluators
were analysed to examine any
relationships between the
perceived tiger density (data
obtained from the Project Tiger
website) and the management
score. The results (Fig. 1) show that
the evaluators did give higher
management effectiveness
Sunderban Tiger Reserve: Pradeep Vyas
11
scores to Tiger Reserves with
perceived higher tiger populations.
This may be an evaluator’s
bias regardless of the uncertainty
pertaining to reported tiger densities;
e.g. while there are no
tigers left in Sariska now, the census
data continue to indicate presence
of tigers5.
Fig. 1: ScatterPlot - Management Effectiveness
Score vs Tiger Density
Equally, the results showed a
positive significant relationship
between funding level and perceived
tiger density. This means there is an
incentive for reserve managers to
report high numbers of tigers living
in their reserves, even if those
numbers are not warranted, such as
was the case with Sariska.
An interesting analysis carried out
with this large body of valuable data
was to ascertain whether there
were management characteristics
that predict success or failure. This
analysis was done with a Community
Analysis Package (Wards Clustering,
Euclidean Distance, and
Untransformed Data), and the
results are in Fig. 2. It is evident
that there are essentially three
major management clusters, or
rather “management paradigms”. It
is striking that Sariska and
Ranthambhore reserves are
clustered close to each other, and
considering the current situation of
Sariska, it would appear that
Ranthambhore is at immediate risk
with urgent remedial actions
needed. Equally, the entire cluster
of reserves including Dampa, Pakke,
5 The recently published Tiger Task Force Report, joining the Dots, http://projecttiger.nicm/TTF2005/ index.html provides three compelling reasonson what happened in Sariska, viz. (a) complete breakdown in the internal management system of the park, (b) faulty and fudged system to count thenumber of tigers, as a result of which tigers were disappearing in the reserve but appearing in the census reports of the park authorities; and(c) complete breakdown in the relationship between villagers and the park management. This report also highlights (page 12) the crucial need foran efficient methodology to estimate tiger populations, as official census continued to indicate presence of tigers when the situation was otherwise.
The Ministry of Environment & Forests has constituted an “Expert Committee”for the annual monitoring and evaluation of Project Tiger Reserves in accordance with thenormative guidelines issued vide GC Division note No. 20011/3/2003-GC dated01.04.2004. The composition of the Committee and the allocated regions for review areas below:
Sno Names Allocated Region for review
1. Shri V.B. Sawarkar 2. Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh
Eastern Region
3. Shri S.C. Sharma 4. Dr. Asad A. Rahmani
Western Region
5. Shri S.K. Chakraborti 6. Shri A.S. Negi
Central Region
7. Shri P.K. Mishra 8. Shri M.G. Gogate
Southern Region
9. Shri Kamal Naidu 10. Shri S.K. Patnaik
Northern Region
2. The Expert Committee members would annually monitor and evaluate tiger reserves
falling within the region allocated to them in a format prescribed by the Project TigerDirectorate, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India. The period/datesfor the field visits relating to monitoring and evaluation would be communicated to themembers by the Project Tiger Directorate.
3. The “Term of References” for the Committee Members are as below:
The Committee Members are required to undertake the work within one month ofreceiving such a request from the Project Tiger Directorate, Ministry of Environment &Forests, Government of India.
22
· The Committee Members are required to send their monitoring and evaluation report tothe IGF & Director, Project Tiger, Annex – 5, Bikaner House, Shahajahan Road, NewDelhi – 110011, within 30 days after the field visit.
· The members of the committee would be paid TA/DA as per existing rules.
4. The term of the Expert Committee would be for a period of two years.
(Dr. Rajesh Gopal)IGF & Director – Project Tiger
Copy To:
1. PPS to Secretary (E & F)2. PPS to DG & SS3. PPS to Addl. DG (WL)4. PS to JS & FA5. All Members of the Expert Committee6. Chief Secretaries/Forest Secretaries/PCCFs/CWLWs of all Tiger Reserve States7. Field Directors of all Tiger Reserves
(Dr. Rajesh Gopal)IGF & Director – Project Tiger
23
Annexure-IIMonitoring & Evaluation Parameters of Tiger Reserves
Issue Criteria Maximum Score
Current Score
Effectiveness (%)
Comments
Completion of legal procedures 3 Delineation of buffer zone 3 Unified control of buffer 3
1. Legal Status
Sub-Total 9 In the buffer 3 The land use is totally incompatible in the buffer(includes forestry operations also)
0
Beyond buffer (5km. radius) 3 Beyond buffer the landuse is detrimental 0
2. Compatible Land Use
Sub-Total 6 Habitation present within the core 0 No habitation within the core 4 Livestock Grazing pressure present within the core 0 No livestock grazing pressure within the core or adjoining areas 4 Cultivation present in the core 0 Encroachment present 0 Collection of NTFP in the core 0 Quarrying present in the core 0
3. Human Pressure
Sub-Total 8 Yes 0 No 3
4. Use of the Area by other Departments
Sub-Total 3 Yes 3 No 0
5. Management Plan Updated
Sub-Total 3 Satisfactory 3 Poor 0
6. Regeneration Status in the Core
Sub-Total 3 Satisfactory 3 Poor 0
7. Regeneration Status in the Buffer
Sub-Total 3 satisfactory 3 inadequate 0
8. Staff in Position
Sub-Total 3 satisfactory 3 unsatisfactory 0
9. Average Age of Staff
Sub-Total 3 adequate 3 inadequate 0
10. Equipments
Sub-Total 3 adequate 3 inadequate 0
11. Vehicles
Sub-Total 3 Yes 4 delayed 0
12. Timely Release of CA
Sub-Total 4 yes 4 no 0
13. Strike Force Available
Sub-Total 4 satisfactory 4 unsatisfactory 0
14. Disbursement of Salary/ Project Allowance/ TA
Sub-Total 4 ongoing 3 Not ongoing 0
15. Field Data Collection & Research
Sub-Total 3 Done as per CC 5 Not done as per CC 0
16. Tourism Regulation
Sub-Total 5 yes 5 no 0
17. Recycling of gate Receipts done
Sub-Total 5 yes 3 Not done regularly 0
18. Field Staff Training
Sub-Total 3 present 0 Not seen 3
19. Weed Growth in the Habitat
Sub-Total 3 present 1 managed 4
20. Gregarious Woodland Advancement in Meadows
Sub-Total 4 adequate 4 inadequate 0
21. Field Visits by Officers
Sub-Total 4 satisfactory 4 unsatisfactory 0
22. Staff Welfare Measures
Sub-Total 4 Common 0 negligible 4
23. Poaching
Sub-Total 4
24
Issue Criteria Maximum Score
Current Score
Effectiveness (%)
Comments
common 0 Less than 1% of the TR area 5
24. Fires
Sub-Total 5 common 0 rare 3
25. Epidemics
Sub-Total 3 Done regularly 3 irregular 1
26. Wildlife Estimation
Sub-Total 3 yes 5 no 0
27. Patrolling Camps Present
Sub-Total 5 yes 4 no 0
28. Daily Monitoring done through Camps and Recorded Sub-Total 4
yes 3 no 0
29. Networking Strategy Present
Sub-Total 3 yes 5 no 0
30. Daily Patrolling done
Sub-Total 5 yes 4 no 0
31. Court Cases Monitored
Sub-Total 4 Paid promptly 5 Not paid promptly 0
32. Ex-Gratia, Compensation
Sub-Total 5 adequate 2 poor 0
33. Tourist Facilities
Sub-Total 2 good 1 poor 0
34. Relationship with Police
Sub-Total 1 ongoing 6 lacking 0
35. Ecodevelopment Activities
Sub-Total 6 good 5 poor 0
36. Fulfilment of Reciprocal Commitments
Sub-Total 5 done 5 Not done 0
37. Cattle Immunisation In Villages
Sub-Total 5 yes 5 no 0
38. Host Community Involvement In Ecotourism
Sub-Total 5 Done 4 Not done 0
39. Registration of Arms
Sub-Total 4 yes 4 no 0
40. PM done in all Cases of Unnatural Mortality
Sub-Total 4 good 5 poor 0
41. Trust Between Local People & TR Management
Sub-Total 5 good 3 poor 0
42. Economic Benefits To Stake Holders
Sub-Total 3 good 5 poor 0
43. Control Over Use / Access Of TR Resources
Sub-Total 5 good 4 lacking 0
44. Efforts Towards Sustainable Development
Sub-Total 4 Being done 5 lacking 0
45. Restorative Inputs Beyond TR
Sub-Total 5 Grand Total 185 GRADING SCORE GRADE I RESERVE (VERY GOOD) : 135 & ABOVE GRADE II RESERVE (GOOD) : 108 to 134 GRADE III RESERVE (SATISFACTORY) : 72 to 108 GRADE IV RESERVE (POOR) : 71 & BELOW