Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area

The management plan encompasses the GHNP, the Ecozone (buffer zone), and both Tirthan and Sainj Wildlife Sanctuaries (IUCN, 2013). Further, the State Party has reaffirmed its commitment to realize the vision of a significantly enlarged World Heritage property by including the National Parks of Pin Valley and Khirganga, as well as the wildlife sanctuaries of Rupi Bhaba and Kanawar, which would roughly triple the current surface area of the property (UNESCO, 2019a). The State Party stated that in 2017, the State Board for Wildlife of Himachal Pradesh (SBWL) confirmed an earlier decision to merge Khirganga National Park with Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area (GHNPCA), thereby initiating the corresponding process, while noting that both Khirganga and Pin Valley National Parks have yet to gain full National Park status; that the significant expansion of GHNPCA to create a coherently managed single conservation complex is to be formalized by a property extension nomination, once the merge of the aforementioned protected areas into the GHNPCA has been completed at the national level (UNESCO, 2019a).

The property is managed under one management plan, which includes appropriate conservation, protection and management effectiveness requirements for the Park. However, each unit of the GHNPCA has distinct management objectives. For example, GHNP focuses on protection of resources while managing ecologically sustainable tourism; Sainj Wildlife Sanctuary’s priority is management of three villages within its boundaries to minimize their impacts on biodiversity; Tirthan Wildlife Sanctuary regulates the non-resident shepherds to minimize impacts of grazing by sheep and other livestock (State Party on India, 2013; IUCN, 2013).
Protection of the property is of paramount importance. The core area is naturally afforded better protection due to its remoteness. However, paucity of staff assigned to the Park leads to unrealistically large areas under just a couple of forest guards. The bulk of GHNP staff is deployed in the Ecozone, which is essentially not a part of the Park. The equipment (walki-talkies or wireless network needed as mobiles do not work in the Park), mobility and training of field staff remain a matter of concern. Forests of the Ecozone are vulnerable to annual fires. These have been quite successfully contained through an incentive-based mechanism involving local village forest development societies (VFDS). Between 2010 and 2016 a sum of INR 614,000 was distributed as incentives to 25 VFDSs in the Ecozone. However there is a need for continuous engagement between the management authority and local communities. The Management effectiveness evaluation (a global framework to evaluate the performance of protected areas) was undertaken for Great Himalayan National Park between 2006-2009 (WII, 2015) but a new management effectiveness evaluation is now needed.

The boundaries of GHNPCA are clearly defined and offer both geographic and legal protection (IUCN, 2013). The property has a buffer zone along itswestern side (the 26,560 ha Ecozone) reflecting the areas of greatest human population pressure (Management Plan 2010-2020). The property is also afforded good protection in the north, east and south due to the rugged and difficult to access high mountains (IUCN, 2014; UNESCO. 2019a).

The State Party has reaffirmed its commitment to undertake a regional World Heritage study recommended by the Committee (WH Committee, 2014), which fully considers the existing property (UNESCO, 2019a). . The results of the regional World Heritage study, if done, are not known. GHNP is legislated under The Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. The Act is supported by small area micro plans in the Ecozone. This is to facilitate the participation of the village councils (called Panchayats) in the Ecologically Sustained Programmes such as eco development (State Party of India, 2011). The Park has a history of microcredit schemes in small women groups (as given in the initial application to UNESCO; Pandey and Gaston 2019). Such schemes can be of good help for the Park administration to involve local communities in the conservation of Park's biological diversity. The microcredit groups can become starting point for the microplans. Facilitation of marketing of the produce by the microcredit groups can be of immense help to such households who still indulge in illegal activities of herb collection in the Park (Ibid, 2020).

Prior to the establishment of a National Park in 1999, about 2,500 people collected herbs and mushrooms from the area and about 35,000 sheep and goats grazed the Park. However, sections of the local community remain seriously concerned about the erosion of rights and the impacts on local livelihoods and access (IUCN Consultation, 2014). The local people have by and large now accepted the existence of the Park and are more reconciled to ensuing changes. The earlier perceived disruption of livelihoods due to creation of the Park now stands allayed. The earning potential of ecotourism in generally welcomed and better understood and appreciated (Internal assessment GHNP, 2017). Further, the transition between use and conservation in the property has been a phased process carried out in a socially responsible way (Hunter, 2019). The State Party has included compensation for traditional rights and continuing investments in the Ecozone (IUCN, 2013). At the same time, the state party has acknowledged that local livelihoods depend on natural resources and the implications of access restrictions in protected areas (UNESCO, 2019). It has initiated several activities such as interaction with Women Saving and Credit Groups to support alternative livelihood options; dialogue with and guidance for local tourism operators (Pandey, 2008); as well as diverse capacity development efforts in cooperation with the Category 2 Centre at Wildlife Institute of India under the auspices of UNESCO. Concrete community initiatives include involvement of local community leaders in a Management Council convening annually; a Women Folk Festival; a Natural Heritage Fest celebrating a nature-culture linkage through local arts and culture; and a GIZ (German Corporation for International Cooperation GmbH)-assisted community conservation programme promoting Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes (UNESCO, 2019). In recent years, GHNP authority has begun undertaking various community development measures through Biodiversity Conservation Society (BiodCS), Village-Level Forest Development Committees or Ward Development Committees, Community-Based Eco Tourism (CBET), direct labour engagement and patrolling activities with the help of local people. It also provides alternate income generation to the local communities though Women Saving Credit Groups (WSCGs) (Jacob et al., 2019). More recently however, BiodCS and WSCGs  initiatives have faded and need revival (IUCN Consultation, 2020).

The GHNP is afforded the fullest legal protection under the Indian Wildlife Protection Act 1972. Whilst Tirthan and Sainj Wildlife Sanctuaries do not enjoy the same levels of protection as GHNP, they are ‘designated to protect, propagate, and develop wildlife or its environment in areas of ecological and zoological significance’ (State Party of India, 2013). Further, the Himachal Pradesh state board of wildlife (the primary stakeholder in decision making of the property), decided against the recommended re-categorization of Tirthan and Sainj Wildlife Sanctuaries as National Parks in order to avoid relocation of villages in line with legal national park requirements and “to allow local communities to continue sustainable activities in the area” in the wording of SBWL, while trying to convince local people to “phase out” grazing in Tirthan Wildlife Sanctuary (UNESCO, 2019a). The proposal to construct electricity lines and potentially roads through the Sainj Wildlife Sanctuary as a result of demand from the remote villages of Shakti and Marore can pose a threat to wildlife.
 

The Management effectiveness evaluation (a global framework to evaluate the performance of protected areas) was undertaken for Great Himalayan National Park between 2006-2009 (WII, 2015) but a new management effectiveness evaluation is now needed.
 

The State Party has responded to some of the Committee’s decisions to date. The State Party is reporting progress towards extending the property albeit it being somewhat slow, and has reported progress in working with local communities and indigenous peoples (WH Committee, 2016; 2019). However, the 2019 State Party report did not provide sufficient information to allow the Committee to assess the deficiencies identified in a Management Effectiveness Assessment. Whilst the State Party has also repeated its commitment to undertake a regional comparative study of natural World Heritage protential within the Himalayas and adjacent mountain regions, no concrete output has yet been seen (WH Committee, 2019).

Human settlement related threats such as agriculture, localized poaching, traditional grazing, human-wildlife conflicts and hydropower development pose the greatest threats to the GHNPCA (WH Committee, 2014). The State Party carries out a range of efficient and effective actions, which address concerns related to the property’s sustainability. Trekking routes are monitored and managed to ensure no negative impacts on key species (State Party of India, 2011). Seasonal grazing in Tirthan Wildlife Sanctuary has the potential for adverse impact and requires management and progressive phasing out (IUCN, 2014). Hunting has been banned, however, localized poaching has been known to take place. Illegal medicinal plant collection also occurs. Management programmes are in place to address these issues (IUCN, 2013; WII 2015).

In 2012 GHNP had an annual salary budget of 19 million Rupees (USD 348,000). Annual operational funds in 2012 included 6.9 million Rupees (USD 126,350) for flora and fauna conservation, with capital funds including 2.5 million Rupees (USD 46,000) for a National Medicinal Pant Board Project; 948,000 Rupees (USD 17,350) for a Botanical Garden Project and an allocation of 2,074,200 Rupees (USD 38,000) from the Biodiversity Conservation Society (IUCN, 2013). An ongoing fundraising programme for the management of the GHNPCA has been established through a Park entry fee and income from the facilities created for Community Based Ecotourism. One million Rupees per year has been raised since 2002 and these funds contribute to marinating community related assets (such as the Community Training and Tourist Center at Sai Ropa) and to running training programmes for the staff and villagers (State Party of India, 2011). Financial position has considerably improved since the GHNP was declared a World Heritage site. During 2015-16 the total budgeted outlay was 40,643,500 Rupees (USD 625,284). This increased to 72,685,950 Rupees (USD 1.118 million) in 2016-17.

In 2012, there were 71 permanent staff members and a number of temporary staff. Staff include 40 personnel for patrolling and nursery duties (IUCN, 2013). Several training workshops were held regularly for community groups in Income Generation Activities like handicraft making with local raw materials, value added edible products, training for eco-tourism guides and so forth. About 20 forest guards were trained at the Wildlife Institute of India in 2015 on advanced Census techniques. Four forest guards were trained in ringing of migratory birds and relevant record keeping. A workshop on ‘Prosecution of Wildlife Offences’ was held in June 2017. A training for field staff for GIS Survey methods was done by the Forest Survey of India in May 2017. However, paucity of staff assigned to the Park leads to unrealistically large areas under just a couple of forest guards. The bulk of GHNP staff is deployed in the Ecozone, which is essentially not a part of the Park. The equipment and mobility of field staff remain a matter of concern.

There are a number of information centres with conference/training room facilities. At Sai Ropa there is an Ecozone Community Center just outside the Gushaini entrance to the Park. Here there is a 520 m long "Biodiversity Trail" that has trees and medicinal plant species transplanted from the Park and a demonstration site for vermicomposting; a butterfly enclosure, and a solar energy demonstration site (State Party of India, 2011). The facilities are being adequately maintained and managed as of July 2017.

The annual average visitor numbers to the Park are very low (700 to 1000 per annum) due to challenging access. Use of trekking routes within the Park is managed using a permit system and it is guided by wildlife population monitoring and research. Tourism is encouraged in the Ecozone forests (i.e. the buffer zone). Education and interpretive materials are provided by various means including a village level Street Theatre group as a part of a local NGO, as well as signage, maps, educational displays, park brochures, posters, and photo exhibitions. The Larji Information Center located outside the Park and near the confluence of Sainj and Tirthan rivers caters to tourists, school children and the village community with a training centre and projection facility. Sai Ropa is an Ecozone Community Center 5 km from Banjar and 5 km before the Gushaini entrance to the Park, which caters to tourists with a Forest Rest House and a photo exhibition (State Party of India, 2011). As noted above, management is directed toward reducing impacts on trekking routes. For example, trekking routes within the Tirthan Valley were closed in deference to declining Western Tragopan numbers; trails commonly impacted by heavy rains and mudslides are closed or re-routed to ensure that essential maintenance can be carried out; monitoring programmes evaluate fluctuations in population numbers and the status of certain species and evaluate the regimes adopted for conserving biodiversity (State Party of India, 2011). Depending on the breeding season, sections of the Park are closed to trekkers and visitors as part of visitor management.

The State Party states it recognizes the need for monitoring and considers it “as an essential component of any viable strategy to conserve biological diversity because it provides a basis to track the status of various components of biodiversity over time.” The main ways this has occurred at the property are for monitoring large mammals, visitors (including wildlife tourists, pilgrims, researchers), and socio-economic trends (State Party of India, 2011). Monitoring of key species in GHNP over a 5-year period showed an upward trend in populations (number of animals per sq. km) among Western Tragopan, Cheer pheasant, musk deer, black bear and brown bear. Population trends for Monal pheasant, Ghoral and Blue sheep have shown fluctuations, while for Himalayan Tahr numbers indicate no change. A recent pilot study (Jacob et al., 2019) , has reported that there is an overall increase in the density of the birds from 1990 to 2015 in all the three ranges of the Park. For mammals, the Jeenewal and Tirthan ranges showed a good population trend, but in Sainj range the trends indicated a decline. Mammals such as Himalayan Black bear, Brown bear, Gray Langur and Rhesus macaque showed a good population trend in the Teenwal and Sainj ranges. The population of black bear, brown bear, common Leopard, Himalayan Thar and Musk deer were observed to be declining in the Tirthan range. The increase in wild populations may be due to the higher level of protection imposed in the forest areas and also due to reduction of anthropogenic pressure in the form of collection of medicinal plants or fuel wood and grazing from national park area (Jacob et al., 2019).  Further, effective protective measures may have also resulted in overt expression of agitation against the creation of park. This has resulted in intentional kindling of fire in the forest areas and unregulated grazing of sheep and goats in areas even though it is not a customary practice, which has resulted in decreasing trends in the mammalian population in a few areas (Jacob et al., 2019). Long term monitoring is required.

A number of large-scale research projects have been undertaken in the years from 2002 up until 2011 with the bulk of funding coming from the State Party. These included research on conservation and cultivation of medicinal herbs in and around GHNP, community involvement and ecotourism prospects and challenges. As many as 11 research studies have been completed/ are ongoing. Prominent among these are, ”Non-invasive observational study on micro-flora, invertebrates, fishes, herpetofauna, birds and mammals in the protected areas” by the Wildlife Institute of India, for assessment of impacts due to climate change. Diverse capacity development efforts in cooperation with the Category 2 Centre at Wildlife Institute of India under the auspices of UNESCO are also underway. Concrete community initiatives include involvement of local community leaders in a Management Council convening annually; a Women Folk Festival; a Natural Heritage Fest celebrating a nature-culture linkage through local arts and culture; and a GIZ (German Corporation for International Cooperation GmbH)-assisted community conservation programme promoting Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes are some of  the recent initiatives (UNESCO, 2019).