Keoladeo National Park
Country
India
Inscribed in
1985
Criterion
(x)
The conservation outlook for this site has been assessed as "good with some concerns" in the latest assessment cycle. Explore the Conservation Outlook Assessment for the site below. You have the option to access the summary, or the detailed assessment.
This former duck-hunting reserve of the Maharajas is one of the major wintering areas for large numbers of aquatic birds from Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, China and Siberia. Some 364 species of birds, including the rare Siberian crane, have been recorded in the park. © UNESCO
Summary
2020 Conservation Outlook
Finalised on
01 Dec 2020
Good with some concerns
Current state and trend of VALUES
Low Concern
Trend
Stable
Overall THREATS
Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT
Full assessment
Finalised on
01 Dec 2020
Description of values
An area which provides unique and globally significant natural habitats for abundant populations of both resident and migratory waterbirds
Criterion
(x)
The Keoladeo National Park is a 2,873 ha wetland of international importance for migratory waterfowl. The site is one of the major wintering areas for large numbers of aquatic birds from Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, China and Siberia. Some 375 species of birds, including the rare Siberian crane, have been recorded in the park. At the time of inscription it was the wintering ground for the Critically Endangered Siberian Crane and continues to be a habitat for large numbers of resident nesting birds, including five Critically Endangered, two Endangered, and six Vulnerable species as well as being a breeding ground for approximately 115 species. The habitat mosaic of the property supports a large number of species in a small area, with 42 species of raptors recorded (IUCN, 1985; World Heritage Committee, 2012).
Diverse and abundant fish species
The fish fauna is both diverse and abundant in this park. Various species of fish that live in various strata of water, having varying sizes and shapes and capabilities of escaping the predators constitute the diverse and complex prey base for supporting various feeding guilds of aquatic birds. The availability of areas with water depths varying from few centimetres to a few meters all the time, is another reason for the presence of a diverse array of wading, diving, dabbling and stalking water birds in this park (Management Plan for Keoladeo National Park 2010-2014).
Rich diversity of species
In recent years reappearance of certain species that were thought to be locally extinct from Keoladeo NP has been observed e.g. the Fishing Cat (Prionailurus viverrinus) and the spotted pond terrapin (Geoclemys hamiltonii). Other species recorded in the property include leopard (Panthera pardus), caracal (Caracal caracal), hog deer (Axis porcinus), rusty-spotted cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus) and four species of bats (IUCN Consultation 2017, 2020). Densities of three major herbivore species, the wild boar, spotted deer and blue bull, appear to be on the increase over the last 25 years (Singh et al. 2017). The property also support rich diversity of burrowing animals as 22 species comprising 10 mammals, 8 birds, 3 reptiles and 1 amphibian use burrows (Mukherjee et al, 2019), including high density of Indian Rock Python (Python molurus).
Assessment information
The issue of securing sufficient water flow to the site has been long unresolved since the time of inscription of the site on the WH List. Decline in bird populations can be attributed to fluctuations in natural and artificial water flows, and there is a pressing need to secure the 550 mcft annual minimum water flow, which is deemed necessary to sustain the basic ecological functioning of the site. The State Party reports that it has taken significant steps to increase water supply to the site with many in the conceptual stages. Some approaches such as the proposed diversion from sewage treatment plants will require strict water quality monitoring mechanisms to be guaranteed before proceeding. The threats from invasive species like Prosopis juliflora, Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) and African cat fish (Clarias gariepinus), although still persist, are reduced over the years because of control measures taken by the park management. Active engagement of community through sixteen eco-development committees (EDCs) in adjacent villages and NGOs was critical in controlling these different invasive species. Accurate and systematically collected time series data on migratory and resident water bird populations is urgently needed to confirm the conservation status and trend for these populations.
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Invasive species)
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Prosopis juliflora was first planted in the property in the 1970s even before the National Park was established (Mukherjee et al., 2017). Satellite imagery-based analysis suggests that between 1986 and 2014, spatial extent of pure stands of P. juliflora expanded from 1.32 sq km to 4.76 sq km of the property i.e. from 4% to 16.5% of the total area of property. In addition, 14.74 sq km of open scrubs area were also invaded by P. juliflora (Mukherjee et al, 2017). The invasion replaced many dominant native tree and shrub species like Acacia nilotica, Mitryagyna parvifolia, Prospis cineraria, Salvadora oleoides, Salvadora persica and Zizyphus mauritiana (Mukherjee et al, 2017). After its rapid spread, their removal was first initiated during 2007-2008 with the help of local communities (SP Report, 2012). In 2014 the State Party reported 1030 ha of forest to have been cleared of the invasive plant (SP Report, 2014). Eradication efforts are ongoing under MGNREGA funding in 2020, with 283.75 ha and 30 ha area respectively completed in 2018-19 and 2019-20 (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia sp.) also poses a threat to the aquatic ecosystem of Keoladeo National Park as dense mats of the hyacinth increases siltation in the wetland. The removal of water hyacinth has been carried out successfully with the help of members of Eco-development Committees (EDCs) formed in 16 peripheral villages (SP Report, 2014).
Whilst Lantana camara is a slower moving threat to the local vegetation its eradication is also required (IUCN Consultation, 2011).
A recent invasive species to the park has been the African cat fish (Clarias gariepinus). Both the diversity and abundance of the fish fauna was found to be declining and the predatory African cat fish was spreading everywhere. From 2009 onwards the park management has been continuously removing the African catfish in the peak summer season when the water in the wetland reduces to a few puddles here and there. This operation was carried out by involving EDC memebers, local fishermen and local NGOs. In 2016 the operation successfully removed over 9000 Cat Fishes (SP Report, 2017; 2019). The operation is continued every year. Thus, in 2020-21, total of 9044 cat fish were removed from the property, mainly from the 'L' block (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Presently the African cat fish population has been brought to very low levels and the increase in the population of local varieties of fish could be observed.
Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia sp.) also poses a threat to the aquatic ecosystem of Keoladeo National Park as dense mats of the hyacinth increases siltation in the wetland. The removal of water hyacinth has been carried out successfully with the help of members of Eco-development Committees (EDCs) formed in 16 peripheral villages (SP Report, 2014).
Whilst Lantana camara is a slower moving threat to the local vegetation its eradication is also required (IUCN Consultation, 2011).
A recent invasive species to the park has been the African cat fish (Clarias gariepinus). Both the diversity and abundance of the fish fauna was found to be declining and the predatory African cat fish was spreading everywhere. From 2009 onwards the park management has been continuously removing the African catfish in the peak summer season when the water in the wetland reduces to a few puddles here and there. This operation was carried out by involving EDC memebers, local fishermen and local NGOs. In 2016 the operation successfully removed over 9000 Cat Fishes (SP Report, 2017; 2019). The operation is continued every year. Thus, in 2020-21, total of 9044 cat fish were removed from the property, mainly from the 'L' block (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Presently the African cat fish population has been brought to very low levels and the increase in the population of local varieties of fish could be observed.
Tourism/ visitors/ recreation
(Impact of tourism)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Whilst the property is well known for bird watching and photography, there do not appear to be guidelines and restrictions set down to ensure little or no disruption is made to bird populations by the huge numbers of photographers, both private and professional, who visit the site for this purpose (IUCN Consultation, 2011). The impact of high influx of tourists are also visible on basking behavior of Indian Rock Python, which eventually might disturb their breeding rate (Mukherjee et al., 2018). The tourists are not allowed to leave the designated tracks/roads and enter the water. Birds get habituated to tourists and come closer to the roads by the month of February. The Range Officer (Tourism) and his staff keep patrolling the area to ensure the tourist discipline.
Utility / Service Lines
(Increase in number of mobile phone towers in close proximity to park boundary)
Outside site
An increase has been reported in numbers of mobile phone towers around the site which may be harmful to the breeding cycle of some species especially storks and passerines (IUCN Consultation, 2011). Although, there has been no scientific evidence so far to prove that the mobile phone towers are harming the birds, the numbers of nesting birds reached an all time peak in the year 2016. However, recently notified Eco-sensitive zone around park (Anon, 2019), uses precautionary principles and puts condition of regulation in erection of electrical and communication towers and laying of cables and other infrastructures within 500 m to 1.5 km area.
Dams/ Water Management or Use
(Inadequate water flow management)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
The key determinant in sustaining the property’s OUV is the maintenance of adequate environmental water flows. The ecological functioning of wetland is affected by situation of water flows- less or more, former cause dryness while the later one causes permanent flooding in some areas.
Time series data on bird populations has been previously provided by the State Party; however, data deficiencies and the use of different methodologies make interpreting these, and thus interpreting the conservation status of key species, challenging. Bird populations fluctuate significantly and declined dramatically after 2008-09. This steep decline followed a period up until the 1990s when reported numbers of birds flocking to the site may have exceeded 100,000 (UNESCO, 2011; Tiwari and Upadhyay, 2017).
The State Party reports that it has “taken significant steps to replenish the water regime in the property’s wetland systems through decisions to release the required environmental water flows and has completed all water related projects to meet the water requirements on a sustainable basis” (State Party, 2019). While positive signs are being made by the State Party towards increasing water flow to the property through Govardhan drainage, Chambal pipeline and Panchana/Ajan dam, there are still significant annual variations in the volume of released water, and thus often do not meet the minimum annual requirement of 550 mcft (State Party, 2019). Fortunately, no serious drought years have been recorded in the park since 2013 to exacerbate the situation. Noting however that the issue of insufficient water flow has been the key issue raised within the WH Convention since 1990, there is an urgent need to resolve this problem using sustainable approaches. The State Party's reported plans to divert 110 mcft treated sewage water (State Party, 2019) must require very strict water quality monitoring protocols, otherwise major problems for the biodiversity values of park could be foreseen.
Time series data on bird populations has been previously provided by the State Party; however, data deficiencies and the use of different methodologies make interpreting these, and thus interpreting the conservation status of key species, challenging. Bird populations fluctuate significantly and declined dramatically after 2008-09. This steep decline followed a period up until the 1990s when reported numbers of birds flocking to the site may have exceeded 100,000 (UNESCO, 2011; Tiwari and Upadhyay, 2017).
The State Party reports that it has “taken significant steps to replenish the water regime in the property’s wetland systems through decisions to release the required environmental water flows and has completed all water related projects to meet the water requirements on a sustainable basis” (State Party, 2019). While positive signs are being made by the State Party towards increasing water flow to the property through Govardhan drainage, Chambal pipeline and Panchana/Ajan dam, there are still significant annual variations in the volume of released water, and thus often do not meet the minimum annual requirement of 550 mcft (State Party, 2019). Fortunately, no serious drought years have been recorded in the park since 2013 to exacerbate the situation. Noting however that the issue of insufficient water flow has been the key issue raised within the WH Convention since 1990, there is an urgent need to resolve this problem using sustainable approaches. The State Party's reported plans to divert 110 mcft treated sewage water (State Party, 2019) must require very strict water quality monitoring protocols, otherwise major problems for the biodiversity values of park could be foreseen.
Invasive grass species like Paspalum distichum respond to changing water supply in the site and thus spreading in the wetland area replacing other important aquatic vegetation and thus require an adequate management response. Threats from development along the periphery of the site like expansion of road and traffic and increase in mobile communication towers are adequately addressed by notifying Eco-sensitive Zone.
Roads/ Railroads
(National or state highways)
Outside site
The National Highway (NH 11) passes in front of the Park with the probability of an increase in heavy traffic. The Eco-Sensitive Zone for the property notifed by Order SO2606(E) in July 2019 which surrounds the entire property will prohibit or regulate certain development activities (State Party, 2019). Whilst the Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone is yet to be developed, this notification could reduce threats from new roads and highways.
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(New potential invasive species)
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Invasive water plant species such as Eichhornia and Paspalum may occur and spread if not controlled, with the restoration of water supplies. (IUCN/UNESCO, 2008). The extensive growth and spread of grass species - Paspalum distichum - depletes the level of oxygen in the open water bodies affecting severely the other good biomass and consequently the bird populations (Patra et al., 2017).
Other Activities
(Disposal of livestock carcass near property)
Outside site
In 2018 reports that Bharatpur municipality was disposing of livestock carcasses just outside the boundary of property was made. The foul smell from the disposed caracasses have reportedly affected the tourism value of the property but they have also attracted feral/street dogs, which have at times entered the property. The carcasses pose health hazards for wildlife and humans (Hindustantimes, 2017; UNESCO, 2018). The State Party reports that discussions are ongoing between the park management authority and the regional government to prevent the disposal of cattle carcasses near the property (State Party, 2019). According to third party information, the Bharatpur civil administration has now shifted the carcass disposal site to different location (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
There has been progress made by the State Party to replenish the water supplies within the site’s wetland systems through the decisions to release environmental water flows from reservoirs and completed water related projects. This needs to be ongoing and demonstrably sustainable through the provision of long-term comprehensive data on annual water replenishment. More accurate and long-term ecological monitoring programmes are needed to understand the status and trend of bird populations and the impact of ecosystem changes and so guide the recovery of bird populations. Overall, the threats emerging from invasive species like P. juliflora, E. crassipes and Clarias gariepinus are reduced to a large extent, if not managed completely. The problem of P. distichum is yet to have clear management strategy. An increase in the involvement of local communities in the management of the site should play a key role in contributing to the ongoing success in the control of invasive species. By notifying Eco-sensitive Zone around the park, several potential threats emerging from outside park area (like pollution, mobile towers, road expansion etc.) can be regulated effectively.
Management system
The Management Plan of 2002-2006 has been updated twice. First, for period 2010-2014 and second, up to 2017 which is still continuing. The present management plan places special emphasis on solving the water crisis, eco-development, protecting and improving the habitat for waterfowl and enhancing interpretation facilities to improve visitor satisfaction. Research and monitoring has also been given adequate importance. There has also been more emphasis placed on ecologically sound tourism management. Focus is also on coordination between the range of administrative bodies / levels involved in the management of the property. The Management Plan has addressed all the issues related to maintaining the OUV of the property and the recommendations have been made with respect to each of the issues related to the park. A new 2020-2030 management plan has been drafted recently, with stakeholder consultations completed (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Effectiveness of management system
The existing management plan identifies the need for engagement with local people in management. In order to increase the role of local communities in the management of the property, eco-development programmes have been initiated in the surrounding villages. Habitat improvement operations are now being executed through the eco-development committees. The management activities are being implemented through an annual work/action plan. Local communities give their inputs related to management but have no direct role in the park management. However, their role and involvement could be improved. Similarly, at present there are little or no cooperation from local industries regarding management of the property and/or area surrounding the property (UNESCO, Periodic Report, 2011). Some NGOs, are however, participated in research and education activities (IUCN Consultation, 2011). Existing and proposed Management Plan for Keoladeo NP lays emphasis on evaluation of management effectiveness of the park.
The park management works in close coordination with water supply and irrigation departments to ensure the supply of water to the property. With notification of eco-sensitive zone, park management will need to work closely with various other departments and agencies.
The park management works in close coordination with water supply and irrigation departments to ensure the supply of water to the property. With notification of eco-sensitive zone, park management will need to work closely with various other departments and agencies.
Boundaries
The property had well defined boundaries but no buffer zone has been defined at the time of its inscription on the World Heritage List. This is partly due to the property being enclosed within a 2.6m high boundary wall which provides significant protection from surrounding activities (IUCN/UNESCO, 2008). The Eco-sensitive Zone (ESZ) for the property was notified by Order SO2606(E) dated July 2019. The ESZ surrounds the entire property, with the 500m wide strip expanding up to 1.5km in the south in order to incorporate more upstream areas. The ESZ includes 22 villages around property.
Integration into regional and national planning systems
The property is a protected wetland located in the central Asian migratory flyway. 27 satellite wetlands have been identified around the property that support a large number of avifauna and act as buffer wetlands (UNESCO, Periodic Report, 2011; State Party, 2016; 2018). In the landscape surrounding Keoladeo National Park, there are many wetlands both big and small; seasonal and perennial. The migratory waterfowl arriving in this region get distributed in these wetlands as they move in between these wetlands for feeding and roosting. There are no barriers to the free movement in the flight corridors of the birds.
Relationships with local people
As part of reciprocal committments for park management, local communities and park management are working together on many aspects of management. Eco Development Committees have been constituted in 16 villages adjacent to the park boundary. This initiative is a result of establishing committees based on the proximity of the villages to the park and also on their apparent dependence on the park. The objective of these committees is to promote sustainable use of land and other resources, as well as on-farm and off-farm income generating activities which are not deleterious to the property (UNESCO, 2012; State Party, 2014). Local communities and indigenous peoples resident, or close, to the property have had some input into discussions relating to management but no direct role in management (UNESCO, Periodic Report, 2011). Local communities, through EDCs, are engaged in some of the important activities of PA management, including the removal of invasive species- Prosopis juliflora and Water Hyacinth and African Cat Fish. EDC memebers are also engaged in tourism support activities like rickshaw pulling and as visitor guides etc.
Legal framework
The legal status of the property has remained the same since its inscription on the World Heritage list. The property is managed by the Forest Department of the State of Rajasthan. According to the State Party, (SP Report, 2012) “there is excellent capacity and resources to enforce and regulate legislation at the site”. The property is protected under The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The avifauna of satellite wetlands are also protected by the same legislation but this Act does not offer protection to the habitat of non-protected satellite wetlands (UNESCO, Periodic Report, 2011). Since the property is enjoying the status of a National Park, the maximum protection status that any Protected Area can get in India.
With the legal notification of Eco-senstive Zone (SP Report, 2019; Anon, 2019), following activities are prohibited within ESZ: commercial mining, stone quarrying and crushing units; setting of industries causing pollution; commercial establishment of hotels and resorts; establishment of major hydro-electric project; use or production or processing of any hazardous substances; discharge of untreated effluents in natural water bodies or land area; setting up of new saw mills; setting up of brick kilns; commercial use of firewood and use of polythene bags. Also, some of the activities will be regulated, these include, inter-alia,: felling of trees; erection of electrical and communication towers and laying of cables and other infrastructures; widening and strengthening of existing roads and construction of new roads; flying over the ESZ by hot air balloon, helicopter, drones, microlites, etc; commercial extraction of surface and ground water (Anon, 2019). Through an amendment in ESZ notification, the use, production, processing of pesticides/ insecticides /herbicides are also prohibited within ESZ (Anon, 2020). The ESZ demaraction and listing of prohibited and regulatory activities, further strengthen the legal measures for conservation of biodiversity values of the property. The State Party in corrdination with district administrtion need to prepare Zonal Master Plan for notified ESZ.
With the legal notification of Eco-senstive Zone (SP Report, 2019; Anon, 2019), following activities are prohibited within ESZ: commercial mining, stone quarrying and crushing units; setting of industries causing pollution; commercial establishment of hotels and resorts; establishment of major hydro-electric project; use or production or processing of any hazardous substances; discharge of untreated effluents in natural water bodies or land area; setting up of new saw mills; setting up of brick kilns; commercial use of firewood and use of polythene bags. Also, some of the activities will be regulated, these include, inter-alia,: felling of trees; erection of electrical and communication towers and laying of cables and other infrastructures; widening and strengthening of existing roads and construction of new roads; flying over the ESZ by hot air balloon, helicopter, drones, microlites, etc; commercial extraction of surface and ground water (Anon, 2019). Through an amendment in ESZ notification, the use, production, processing of pesticides/ insecticides /herbicides are also prohibited within ESZ (Anon, 2020). The ESZ demaraction and listing of prohibited and regulatory activities, further strengthen the legal measures for conservation of biodiversity values of the property. The State Party in corrdination with district administrtion need to prepare Zonal Master Plan for notified ESZ.
Law enforcement
Law enforcement system is effective. There are three Range Officers; one for tourism management, one for the flying squad that attends to emergencies issues related to tourism activities and protection and the Range Officer for Keoladeo NP looks after the development works as well as the overall management of the protection activities. There is a road that encircles the park along the boundary wall on all sides. Protection chowkis are located at every 2 to 3 km along this road.
Implementation of Committee decisions and recommendations
The recommendation to ensure adequate supply of water to the site is being addressed by the State Party via a range of existing water sources and new sources linked to water supply projects. The State Party has committed to meeting the minimum supply of 550 mcft environmental water flow to the wetland (SP Report, 2017; SP Report, 2019). It is important to monitor and maintain the real-time water flow data for better management decisions. There are four sources of water. Water from Gambhiri river that reaches the national park through Ajan Bandh, Water from the Chambal Dholpur drinking water project, water from Govardhan drain and the water from rainfall.
The State Party is also working to address the recommendation regarding control of invasive alien species and involvement of local communities in management. Every year, invasive species like P. juliflora, Eichhornia crassipes and African cat fish are removed from the property. No information has been provided on development in the immediate vicinity of the property, as requested by the Committee in Decision 36 COM 7B.11 (WH Committee, 2014).
The State Party is also working to address the recommendation regarding control of invasive alien species and involvement of local communities in management. Every year, invasive species like P. juliflora, Eichhornia crassipes and African cat fish are removed from the property. No information has been provided on development in the immediate vicinity of the property, as requested by the Committee in Decision 36 COM 7B.11 (WH Committee, 2014).
Sustainable use
One of the main uses of the property is ecotourism. Only manually driven cycle rickshaws and battery operated golf carts are allowed inside the park. Bicycles are also provided to the tourists for visiting the park.
The invasive species removed from the park are presently utilize within the park. For example, the African cat fish are left in open area so that jackals, vulture and other scavenging animals feed on those.
The invasive species removed from the park are presently utilize within the park. For example, the African cat fish are left in open area so that jackals, vulture and other scavenging animals feed on those.
Sustainable finance
75% of the property’s overall funding is provided by the National/Federal Government and 20% by the Regional/Provincial Government. The State Party reports that the available budget is sufficient but further funding would enable more effective management to international best practice standard.
The existing sources of funding are secure in the medium-term and planning is underway to secure funding in the long-term (UNESCO, Periodic Report, 2011)
The property has received an estimated total of USD 80,000 in international funding (Enhancing Our Heritage project on management effectiveness assessment). The property has also benefited from the UNF funded World Heritage India programme from 2008 (enhance management effectiveness and build staff capacity; increase the involvement of local communities in the management of the property and promote their sustainable development; and raise awareness through communications and advocacy). (UNESCO, 2012).
The existing sources of funding are secure in the medium-term and planning is underway to secure funding in the long-term (UNESCO, Periodic Report, 2011)
The property has received an estimated total of USD 80,000 in international funding (Enhancing Our Heritage project on management effectiveness assessment). The property has also benefited from the UNF funded World Heritage India programme from 2008 (enhance management effectiveness and build staff capacity; increase the involvement of local communities in the management of the property and promote their sustainable development; and raise awareness through communications and advocacy). (UNESCO, 2012).
Staff capacity, training, and development
At the time of inscription the property was managed by a Deputy Chief Wildlife Warden with a staff comprising a research officer, forester, three rangers, 20 wildlife guards, clerks and an accountant with all staff being employed on a permanent, full-time basis. (IUCN Evaluation, 1985)
A capacity development programme is in place at the property and is partially implemented.
The staff is getting sufficient periodical trainings in law enforcement and skills in natural history and wildlife management. The Ranger Officers and field staff were sent on exposure visits to various PAs in India upgraded as part of a capacity building project. There had been new recruitment of forest guards in 2011, 2013 and 2016 and the fresh recruits have been trained adequately before being sent on field duty.
A capacity development programme is in place at the property and is partially implemented.
The staff is getting sufficient periodical trainings in law enforcement and skills in natural history and wildlife management. The Ranger Officers and field staff were sent on exposure visits to various PAs in India upgraded as part of a capacity building project. There had been new recruitment of forest guards in 2011, 2013 and 2016 and the fresh recruits have been trained adequately before being sent on field duty.
Education and interpretation programs
Whilst the tourism industry and local authorities have a good understanding of the importance of the property as a World Heritage Site there is a lack of understanding amongst the local farming and indigenous communities.
There is a planned education and awareness programme however the State Party reports that it only partly meets their needs and could be improved (UNESCO, Periodic Report, 2011).
There is a planned education and awareness programme however the State Party reports that it only partly meets their needs and could be improved (UNESCO, Periodic Report, 2011).
Tourism and visitation management
There is an excellent visitor centre, information booths, guided tours and a very good system of walking trails. The education, information and awareness building activities are very good with a variety of information brochures and signage available to visitors along the trails (UNESCO, Periodic Report, 2011). This view is countered by the 2008 Mission which found some features in need of restoration and noted that more resources were required for the infrastructure in the park (IUCN/UNESCO Mission, 2008). With the notification of Eco-sensive Zone, the activities of hotel and resorts around the property are under regulatory regime. Park managers had already started discussing with the hotel and resort owners on various park friendly measures (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Within the park, there have been reports of tourists often behaving irresponsibly suh as disturbing wildlife e.g. basking Indian Rock pythons. Such behaviours need to be managed.
Monitoring
The State Party reports that a comprehensive, integrated programme of monitoring, which has been identified as necessary for improving understanding of the OUV of the property, is in place. This programme is noted as monitoring the status of bird populations with particular reference to the amount of water available. The monitoring programme is linked to the Management Plan and much of the monitoring activity is carried out by the managers and staff with involvement of the local communities.
The park authorities carry out a regular annual waterfowl count in the property and satellite wetlands following the framework of Asian Water bird Census (SP Report, 2014; SP Report, 2017, SP Report, 2019). Monitoring avifaunal diversity in the 27 satellite wetlands around Keoladeo National Park which falls within 100 km radius of KNP has also taken place. (SP Report, 2014)
There has been aquatic habitat monitoring also carried out recently. Water samples collected from different blocks of the property have been analyzed for heavy metals, pesticides, toxic metals and salt content.
Monitoring in Keoladeo is mostly effective; however, different datasets present contradictory information on bird numbers and different methodologies contribute to an unclear overall picture on bird population trends (UNESCO, 2014).
The park authorities carry out a regular annual waterfowl count in the property and satellite wetlands following the framework of Asian Water bird Census (SP Report, 2014; SP Report, 2017, SP Report, 2019). Monitoring avifaunal diversity in the 27 satellite wetlands around Keoladeo National Park which falls within 100 km radius of KNP has also taken place. (SP Report, 2014)
There has been aquatic habitat monitoring also carried out recently. Water samples collected from different blocks of the property have been analyzed for heavy metals, pesticides, toxic metals and salt content.
Monitoring in Keoladeo is mostly effective; however, different datasets present contradictory information on bird numbers and different methodologies contribute to an unclear overall picture on bird population trends (UNESCO, 2014).
Research
Whilst there are scientific studies being carried out there is little that is directly related towards management needs at the site (UNESCO, Periodic Report, 2011).
Keoladeo National Park has a Management Plan for the period 2010–2014, extended up to 2017. It identifies the need to restore the water supply to the site’s wetland systems. Over the years, commendable efforts on the part of the State Party have been made to restore the water regime of the wetland. Other management interventions have emphasized working closely with local communities to control invasive species and manage external pressures. However, State party has yet to place any effective monitoring system for water inflow in the park and ecological monitoring of water quality, spread of invasive species and population of bird species. Lack of systematic scientific data gathering protocol on above aspects, affect the understanding of impact of various management actions on the values of the wetland, mainly the bird diversity and population. Participation of local communities in implementing management intervention have been improved and are now strong, and facilitated through Eco-development committees. The draft of new management plan for period 2020 to 2030 is ready and under the process of approval. It is important that the above concerns are addressed in the new management plan.
Assessment of the effectiveness of protection and management in addressing threats outside the site
Some Concern
At the time of the evaluation mission it was noted that the lack of a buffer zone to the site due to physical constraints. Keoladeo National Park sits within a populated human-dominated landscape. It is surrounded by 17 villages and the industrial city of Bharatpur. The high stone wall that surrounds the park prevents, to an extent, human and domestic stock trespass. The wetlands of the park are dependent on a regulated water supply from outside the park boundary, which constitutes the largest threat to the long term sustainability of the site. An ecological buffer zone surrounds the site, which is legally part of the National Park, and which supports the biggest heronry of the region. The wetland blocks that support thousands of migratory waterfowl are situated outside the boundary of the park. Eco-sensitive zone of 500 to 1500m width around the National Park has been notified to prohibit and regulate various activities which may affect the long term sustainability of park but reliable annual water water flow is key.
Best practice examples
Removal of Invasive Alien Species has been carried out by the PA management by involving the local communities. Since there are legal restraints on commercial removal of any produce from the Protected Areas in India, it could only be distributed for the bona fide livelihood use of the communities living around the park. Successful control of Prosopis juliflora, Eichornia crassipes and Clarias gariepinus have been achieved in this manner.
The most eco friendly tourism is practiced in this park where tourists visit the park on bicycle rickshaws, bicycles and on foot only.
The most eco friendly tourism is practiced in this park where tourists visit the park on bicycle rickshaws, bicycles and on foot only.
Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values
Low Concern
Trend
Stable
Progress has been made by the State Party to replenish the water regime within the site’s wetland systems by releasing water from reservoirs and completed water-related projects. Ecological monitoring programmes are in place which are designed to assess long-term ecosystem changes and in particular, the recovery of bird populations. The sustainability of water supply has been ensured by ensuring securing water availability from three different sources of water so that all three of them cannot fail in any single year. The bird data is showing a progressive trend for the last 5 years with no zero year in between. However, comparison of the current bird numbers cannot be made with data of 1990s. Changes in survey methodology and changes in global populations of various species would makes such comparison further difficult. Although, recently the State Party adopted Asian Waterbird Census methods, no time-series bird count data is available in public domain to draw any conclusion. However, recent observations show that the nesting birds in the heronry in 2016 amounted to 20760, maximum in the last 30 years.
This could be a result of the removal of the invasive African catfish that ensured the proliferation of local fish species has also positively influenced the recovery of the nesting colonies. It is, however, also noted that population of few bird species get declined in the site.
This could be a result of the removal of the invasive African catfish that ensured the proliferation of local fish species has also positively influenced the recovery of the nesting colonies. It is, however, also noted that population of few bird species get declined in the site.
Assessment of the current state and trend of other important biodiversity values
Low Concern
Trend
Data Deficient
The park has one of the highest population densities of Indian Rock Python. While, some tourism related disturbance are reported, their population is stable.
Additional information
Outdoor recreation and tourism
There is a steady influx of tourists to the park and in particular of bird-watchers. There is a visitor centre and lecture hall and interpretative material along the system of trails.
The tourists behavious need to be managed, especially near Python basking sites.
Direct employment,
Tourism-related income
Staff are employed on a full time, permanent basis to manage the site. Some local youths are trained as nature tourist guides, especially for bird watching purpose. Some locals (through 16 eco-development committees) are employed as daily wage labour in uprooting of invasive plants and removal of African Cat Fish.
Some part of removed Prosopis juliflora wood are allowed to take as headloads for personal domestic fuelwood needs. The removed cat fish are dumped in dry areas. Vultures and Jackals feed on them.
Collection of timber, e.g. fuelwood
Members of the EDCs are allowed to remove and carry home the Prosopis juliflora wood for their bonafide fuelwood need (SP Report, 2014). Opportunities exist for local people to utilize other invasive species such as Water Hyacinth for fertilizer, Asolla for cattle feed.
The involvement of local communities and stakeholders in the management of Keoladeo National Park has been facilitated through the establishment of Eco-development Committees (EDC’s). These have been formed based on the proximity of villages to the park and also on their apparent dependence on the park. Their aim is to engage local participation in projects promoting sustainable use of land and other resources, as well as income generating activities which are not deleterious to the property. Thus local communities become involved in the protection and preservation of the OUV of the property.
Another benefit from the site is the large number of nature tourists and bird watchers who visit the park. The recently opened Memento shop and Parking area for tourist vehicles are managed by the eco-development committees. This has provided additional income for the local stakeholders. Opportunities exist for local people to be employed by the park and/or via tourism guiding activities (rickshaw bird watching). The visitor centre and interpretative signage along the trails within the park contribute to the education of those who visit.
Another benefit from the site is the large number of nature tourists and bird watchers who visit the park. The recently opened Memento shop and Parking area for tourist vehicles are managed by the eco-development committees. This has provided additional income for the local stakeholders. Opportunities exist for local people to be employed by the park and/or via tourism guiding activities (rickshaw bird watching). The visitor centre and interpretative signage along the trails within the park contribute to the education of those who visit.
| № | Organization | Brief description of Active Projects | Website |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme | Labourers from adjoining villages make their living by clearing Prosopis juliflora from the park. (This initiative is a follow-on from a project where villagers removed invasive species Prosopis juliflora and in return were able to keep the wood from the harvested weed trees.) |
.
|
| 2 | Govardhan Drain Project | Govardhan Drain is an interstate flood control drain constructed jointly by the U.P and Rajasthan Government. The project was completed in September, 2012. |
.
|
| 3 | A Study on the ecological monitoring of the satellite wetlands around KNP. | This study was initiated by the Wildlife Institute of India in 2005 under the UNESCO-IUCN project „Enhancing Our Heritage: Managing and Monitoring for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites‟ and which has been continued under the UNESCO-UNF project „Building partnerships to support UNESCO’s World Heritage Programme: India‟ (2008-2012). As part of these studies, satellite wetlands of high significance value to both migratory and resident water birds have been identified and these are being regularly monitored for the presence and abundance of avifaunal populations. (SP Report, 2012) |
http://whc.unesco.org/en/series/23/
|
| 4 | Nature Based Tourism- Rajputana Society of Natural History (RSNH) (a registered non-profit NGO) | The Rajputana Society of Natural History’s model is to develop income sources for poor village communities with nature based tourism, using one of the neighbouring villages as model. (IUCN Stakeholder Consultation, 2011) |
http://rnhs.org
|
| 5 | Bharatpur City Municipality | In order to treat domestic sewage, two treatmetn plants with capacity of 110 mcft is under progress. The treated water, after quality compliance, can be released to Keoladeo NP. This will help in tackling the water availability issues in KNP to some extent. |
References
| № | References |
|---|---|
| 1 |
Anon (2019). Asian Water bird Census. Keoladeo NP, Bharatpur. Dated. 18, January 2019.
|
| 2 |
Anon (2019). Eco-sensitive Zone of Keoladeo National Park. Gazette Notification, Govt. of India. 19 July 2019.
|
| 3 |
Anon (2020). Eco-sensitive Zone of Keoladeo National Park. Amendment. Gazette Notification, Govt. of India. 21 February 2020.
|
| 4 |
Discovered India (2014). Keoladeo National Park. http://www.discoveredindia.com/list-of-world-heritage-sites…. Accessed 23 April 2014
|
| 5 |
Hindustan Times (2017) Disposal of cattle carcasses near Keoladeo National Park poses threat to migratory birds. [online] https://www.hindustantimes.com/jaipur/disposal-of-cattle-ca…. Accessed 20 August 2020.
|
| 6 |
IUCN (1985). World Heritage Nomination – IUCN Technical Evaluation, Keoladeo National Park (India). In: IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 1985, IUCN Evaluations of nominations of natural and mixed properties to the World Heritage List. [online] Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, pp.17-28. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/340/documents/[Accessed 15 January 2017].
|
| 7 |
IUCN (2011). Stakeholder SOC Consultation. IUCN Gland, Switzerland
|
| 8 |
IUCN/UNESCO (2008). Report of a joint reactive monitoring mission to Keoladeo National Park, India IUCN Gland, Switzerland. UNESCO Paris, France
|
| 9 |
Mukherjee, A., Kumara, H.N. and Bhupathy, S. (2018). Sun-basking, a necessity not a leisure: Anthropogenic driven disturbance, changing the basking pattern of the vulnerable Indian rock python in Keoladeo National Park, India. Global Ecology and Conservation, 13, e00368.
|
| 10 |
Mukherjee, A., Pal, A., Velankar, A.D., Kumara, H.N. and Bhupathy, S. (2019). Stay awhile in my burrow! Interspecific associations of vertebrates to Indian crested porcupine burrows. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 31, (4), 313–328.
|
| 11 |
Mukherjee, A., Velankar, A.D. and Kumara, H.N. (2017). Invasive Prosopis juliflora replacing the Native Floral Community over three decades: a case study of a World Heritage Site, Keoladeo National Park, India. Biodivers. Conserv, 26, 2839–2856.
|
| 12 |
Patra, A., Tushar, J. and Dubey, B. (2017). Modeling and simulation of a wetland park: An application to Keoladeo National Park, India. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 134, 54-78.
|
| 13 |
Ramsar Convention (1981). Keoladeo Bird Sanctuary, Bharatpur Ramsar Information Sheet - http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Database/SearchforRamsarsites/ta…. Accessed 23 April 2014
|
| 14 |
Ramsar Convention (2014). Keoladeo National Park Summary Description http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Database/SearchforRamsarsites/ta…. Accessed 23 April 2014
|
| 15 |
Sharma, N., Mathur, Y.P. and Jethoo, A.S. (2016). Shifting of birds in satellite areas due to some environmental implications in Keoladeo National Park (KNP), Bharatpur. International Conference on Recent Trends in Engineering and Material Science, JNU, 17-19 March, 2016.
|
| 16 |
Singh, A., Mukherjee, A., Dookia, S. and Kumara, H.N. (2017). An updated account of mammal species and population status of ungulates in Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Current Science 113:103-111.
|
| 17 |
State Party of India (2012). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Keoladeo National Park (India). [online] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/340/documents/ (Accessed 22 October 2019).
|
| 18 |
State Party of India (2014). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Keoladeo National Park (India). [online] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/340/documents/ (Accessed 22 October 2019).
|
| 19 |
State Party of India. (2016). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Keoladeo National Park (India). [online] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/340/documents/ (Accessed 22 October 2019).
|
| 20 |
State Party of India. (2017). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Keoladeo National Park (India). [online] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/340/documents/ (Accessed 22 October 2019).
|
| 21 |
State Party of India. (2019). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Keoladeo National Park (India). [online] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/340/documents/ (Accessed 22 October 2019).
|
| 22 |
Tiwari, S.K. and Upadhyay, R.K. (2017). Conservation of degraded wetland system of Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, India. Ecological Complexity, 32, 74-89.
|
| 23 |
UNESCO (2011). Periodic Reporting Section II. Keoladeo National Park UNESCO Paris, France
|
| 24 |
UNESCO (2011). Report on the State of Conservation of Keoladeo National Park, India. State of Conservation Information System of the World Heritage Centre. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/320 (Accessed 22 October 2019).
|
| 25 |
UNESCO (2012). Statement of Outstanding Universal Value 36COM. On line http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/340 accessed 26 February 2014
|
| 26 |
UNESCO (2014). Report on the State of Conservation of Keoladeo National Park, India. State of Conservation Information System of the World Heritage Centre. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/2870 (Accessed 22 October 2019).
|
| 27 |
UNESCO. (2018). Report on the State of Conservation of Keoladeo National Park, India. State of Conservation Information System of the World Heritage Centre. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3661 (Accessed 22 October 2019).
|
| 28 |
World Heritage Committee (2012). Decision 36 COM 7B.11 Keoladeo, India. In: Report of decisions of the 36th session of the World Heritage Committee. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/340/documents/ [Accessed 26 February 2014].
|