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

See all information

Summary

2025 Conservation Outlook

Finalised on

11 Oct 2025

Good with some concerns

Keoladeo National Park is an artificially created and maintained wetland site and therefore it relies on active management to maintain its values. The area floods in the rainy season (July-September), from October to January the water level gradually lowers, from February the land begins to dry out, and by June water remains in a relatively small area in the centre of the property where there are deep depressions. The site relies on the addition of water to support the numbers of resident and migratory waterfowl that make up the OUV. The State Party reports that it has taken significant steps to replenish the water regime in the site’s wetland systems, in order to maintain the OUV of the site, by the decision to release water and by completing all water related projects. These commitments are now being implemented and the park’s water requirements are being met from several different sources of water. Nevertheless, there is a need for further comprehensive data to demonstrate the sustained supply of the minimum required 550 mcft p.a. of water to the site. Similarly, ecological monitoring programmes, despite indicating some growth, remain inconclusive on the overall trends for bird populations, and hence there is a need to place standardized ecological monitoring protocols and methodologies. Therefore, the long-term outlook for the property is dependent on the implementation of appropriate management activities ensuring the maintenance of the property’s OUV. A proactive assessment of the management impact on the OUV is however currently missing. Appropriate monitoring and research programmes are therefore required. Eradication efforts to limit the spread of invasive species continue. While results for certain invasive species are encouraging, the spread of P. juliflora still remains of concern. Close attention should also be paid to breeding attempts and nesting success of individual heronry species to ensure that recruitment into the adult population of all species is sufficient to ensure stable populations. The establishment of the Eco-Sensitive Zone and the Eco-Development Committees offer considerable scope for addressing development related threats and scaling up community participation in threat management.

Current state and trend of VALUES

Low Concern

Keoladeo National Park is an artificial wetland in a semi-arid area of northern India. As such, the values that the site had when it was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1985 require constant attention to maintain. This involves the provision of an adequate amount of water from external sources that allows the property to fulfil its ecological range of functions. 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. In the absence of robust and regular monitoring on water inflow, water quality and wetland extent, it is difficult to know the state of this very dynamic and ever changing environment, including the World Heritage values. A visible symptom of this change is the aggressive spread of P. juliflora, which now covers much of the terrestrial habitat extent. An emerging concern is the potential decline in suitable heronry nesting trees, which may have a notable impact on the range of resident waterbirds that breed successfully in good numbers each year. The lack of a list of attributes that define the values is a significant challenge in understanding exactly how the habitat changes evident at the property are affecting the OUV, and what needs be done to maintain the property's values. Overall, however, there are sufficient observable changes in the habitat mosaic (quality and extent), especially wetland habitats, including heronry trees, to be concerned that the site is losing some of its key wetland characteristics. This in turn seems likely to affect its waterbird assemblages, for which there is a lack of species-specific monitoring data that has been gathered and documented and subject to scientific review of quality.

Overall THREATS

Low Threat

Significant action has been taken by the State Party over the last 15 years to address the issue of sufficient water supplies. In addition to reasonable levels of rainfall at the property each year, between 2010 and 2023 the property received most of its minimum recommended water supply of 550million cubic feet (mcft) or exceeded that level, and only three years when it received less than 250mcft , showing a great improvement compared to previous years. The assertion in the Management Plan, however, that the property requires 650mcft during the monsoon and a further 100mcft in bursts at other times of the year to restore the wetland habitats of the property and their full ecological functioning, makes clear the significant challenge in managing this artificial wetland at a time of considerable environmental change. This provision of water needs to be sustained, and enhanced to meet the property's needs, and communicated through the provision of long-term comprehensive data on annual water replenishment. This can then be related to changes in habitat and in waterbird numbers. Despite progress in removing the invasive species Prosopis juliflora, the species has such a hold in the property that the current scale of removal is slowing its expansion, rather than reducing the species' presence. The threats emerging from other invasive species like E. crassipes and Clarias gariepinus are reduced to a large extent, if not managed completely. The problem of P. distichum is yet to have a clear management strategy. Overall, both major threats, the spread of invasive species and the restoration of water supplies, require a medium-term strategy to address them.

Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT

Mostly Effective

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, the State party has yet to place any effective monitoring system for water inflow in the park and ecological monitoring of water quality, the spread of invasive species, and population of bird species. Lack of systematic scientific data gathering protocol on above aspects affect the understanding of the 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. Another key concern is the change in the mosaic of wetland and terrestrial habitats, and its impact on resident and overwintering bird species. The lack of a consistent monitoring and research program (or its implementation) does not allow to properly shape the management objectives and actions towards the maintenance of the property’s OUV, and limits therefore the effectiveness of the management system.

Full assessment

Click the + and - signs to expand or collapse full accounts of information under each topic. You can also view the entire list of information by clicking Expand all on the top left.

Description of values

Values

World Heritage 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, including seven Critically Endangered species, six Endangered, and eight Vulnerable (Newcastle University, unpubl. data). At the time of inscription it was a wintering ground for the Critically Endangered Siberian Crane and continues to be a habitat for large numbers of resident nesting birds, 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).

Other important biodiversity values

Diverse and abundant fish species

At the time of inscription, the fish fauna was both diverse and abundant in this park. The diversity of species of fish that live in various strata of water, having varying sizes and shapes and capabilities of escaping the predators constitute the broad 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 for much of the year, is another reason for the presence of a diverse array of wading, diving, dabbling and stalking water birds in this property (e.g. Gupta, 2021; IUCN, 2023).

Rich diversity of species

The range of habitats created by the artificial wetlands and adjacent terrestrial habitats also provided a diversity of habitats for taxonomic groups other than birds and fish. 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 supports 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).
Also the floral richness of the site has been considered remarkable for its semi-arid environment (Chandra et al., 2011).

Assessment information

Threats

Current Threats

High Threat

The two biggest threats are ensuring sufficient suitable water and managing the spread of the invasive thorny Prosopis juliflora. There have been significant strides in securing supplies of water, but this remains below the 550 million cubic feet (mcft) annual minimum water flow, which may need to be updated as it may be too low, especially for the property to regain the ecological condition it was in when inscribed. Securing a long-term and reliable supply of appropriate water is critical to maintain the ecological balance of the property. The drier conditions may have helped the spread of invasive species, such as P juliflora, which is now thought to have spread through much of the property dominating notable patches. Management efforts to eradicate P. juliflora has slowed the spread of the species, which however continues to expand its coverage. There are other problematic species, and Paspalum distichum seems to be the most threatening, as it appears to be changing the nature of habitats favoured by bird species that comprise part of the OUV. 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. Engagement with Eco-Development Committees to remove some invasive species, notably Water Hyacinth, has indicated what a focussed and active partnership can achieve in implementing management measures to conserve the property’s OUV.
The current state of the heronry trees should also be addressed, especially in light of the collapse of the heronry near Sapan Mori and uncertainty whether the nesting success elsewhere in the property is sufficient to ensure that the breeding populations of all 15 species is stable.

Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species

(Invasive species)

Other invasive species names

Prosopis juliflora, Paspalum distichum, Eichhornia crassipes, Lantana camara, Clarias gariepinus

High Threat

Inside site

, Widespread(15-50%)

The invasive species of most serious concern, by far, is the invasive thorny shrub or tree Prosopis juliflora that is now found throughout much of the park. It was first planted in the property in the 1970s before the establishment of the National Park (Mukherjee et al., 2017). Despite management efforts, P. juliflora remains a significant and, potentially, increasing threat to the property’s integrity. After a period of rapid spread, its removal was first initiated during 2007-2008 with the help of local communities (State Party of India, 2012). Current management efforts seem to have covered 8.18% of the property since 2016 (IUCN, 2023). There is no formal, on-the-ground assessment of the spread of the species and its impact on the OUV since inscription. However, a survey by Mukherjee et al. (2017) was carried out across the whole Park between September and November 2014. Results were compared with a study carried out in the 1980s (as part of the Bombay Natural History Society’s 10-year study). This satellite imagery-based analysis suggested that between 1986 and 2014 the 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, and a further 14.74 sq km of open scrub area was also invaded by the species replacing the dominance of native trees and shrubs (Mukherjee et al., 2017). By 2024, the species was considered to cover more than 80% of the property (Devananda et al., 2024). A slight decrease in the annual rate of expansion has been noted since 2021 (compared to estimated annual rate of 3.31% since 1972). There may be an interaction between the spread of Prosopis juliflora and the availability of water to the property to maintain the wetland areas in appropriate condition year round.

Other invasive species include Lantana camara, considered to be a slower developing threat to local vegetation. Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia sp.) has the potential to pose a threat to the aquatic ecosystem of Keoladeo National Park given that dense mats of the hyacinth may increase siltation in the wetland making it less hospitable for water birds that require expanses of open water. 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 (State Party of India, 2014). Another recent new invasive species to the property has been the African Catfish (Clarias gariepinus). Both the diversity and abundance of the fish fauna was thought to be declining as the predatory African Catfish spread. 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. This operation was carried out by involving EDC members, local fishermen and local NGOs. The numbers removed have varied in the years since 2009 from 0 to more than 40,000 per year (IUCN, 2023). The African Catfish population is considered to have been brought to very low levels, and it would now be valuable to investigate the current fish fauna's species diversity and richness.

The ongoing eradication of P. juliflora and waterhycinth remains a long term commitment of the management (State Party of India, 2024). Although the ongoing manual removal of Prosopis juliflora, Eichornia crassipes and Clarias gariepinus have been considered successful, the spread of the Prosopis juliflora continues at a faster pace than removal, raising doubts on whether the manual removal may increase the spread of the species if not practiced carefully (IUCN, 2023). There is the need to further investigate whether manual removal practiced in the property is not causing the spread of seeds if not practiced carefully (IUCN, 2023) and whether it can be scaled up effectively, offering significant promise to enhance relationships with local communities.

Another invasive species, whose implications remain unclear but potentially significant, is the grass Paspalum distichum. Although P. distichum already dominated much of the wetland in 1983, by 1984 it dominated nearly the entire wetland (Middleton et al., 1991). A change in species composition had already altered the standing crops and net primary production of these wetlands significantly by the early 1990s (van der Valk et al., 1993). Areas dominated by this grass have been reported as favoured by some water birds, but creating an environment that is avoided by others (IUCN, 2023) and therefore it needs to be managed to ensure that the diversity of habitats used by the resident and overwintering waterbirds is maintained.

Recreational Activities

(Impact of tourism)

Very Low Threat

Inside site

, Scattered(5-15%)

The property is well known for bird watching and nature photography, its easy access facilitated by its proximity to Delhi and Agra. There do not appear to be guidelines and restrictions in place to ensure little or no disruption is made to bird populations by the large numbers of photographers, both private and professional, who visit the site (IUCN Consultation, 2011). Most visitors stay on the main road, on cycles or rickshaws, with few venturing off around the paths around wetland areas. Whilst there are no obvious impacts of visitor behaviour on the main values of the park, the extent to which guides take visitors to basking Indian Rock Pythons (Python molurus) is a concern, as it eventually might disturb their breeding rate (Mukherjee et al., 2018). The Range Officer (Tourism) and his staff are reported to keep patrolling the area to ensure tourist discipline.

Dams & Water Management/Use

(Inadequate water flow management)

High Threat

Inside site

, Throughout(>50%)

The key determinant in sustaining the property’s OUV is the maintenance of adequate natural water flows. The ecological functioning of the artificially created wetland relies on appropriate levels of water throughout the annual cycle. This means high levels of water availability during the monsoon to fill the wetland areas and provide habitats and plentiful food sources for both breeding and overwintering waterbirds during the post-monsoon and winter seasons. The water levels remain fairly high through the winter and then progressively drop through the spring and pre-monsoon period, when the wetland extent in the park is much reduced.

Water supply has been an issue since inscription, and there were particularly significant problems during the 2000s from both reduced water supply from its historical source, the Ajan Dam, and failed monsoons (in 2006 and 2007). As a result, two pipelines were constructed to bring water from further afield, the National Chambal Sanctuary (via the Chambal Pipeline, completed in 2011) and the Kosi Depression (via the Govardhan Drain, completed in 2012). These have been significant projects, bringing water over substantial distances. These two pipelines have improved water availability, but not compensated sufficiently for the loss caused by the reduced supply from the Ajan Dam (Gupta 2021; IUCN, 2023).
The minimum amount of water needed from external sources each year has long been considered to be 550 million cubic feet (mcft). The reference for this number appears to be the Hydrobiology Project carried out by the Bombay Natural History Society during the 1980s (Vijayan, 1991). The KNP administration believes that the changing ecology of the KNP requires more external water every year than that estimated during the 1980s (550 mcft) for its complete rejuvenation. The Management Plan states that KNP requires a minimum 650mcft water every year in the monsoon season to initiate flushing and 100 mcft water in small doses in non-monsoon months (Gutpa, 2021, page 136). The status of the ground water level at present is not clear and requires clarifying along with the impact of agriculture on adjacent land on water levels in KNP throughout the year (IUCN, 2023). Also, it is not clear to what extent the fish fauna in the property has relied in the past on inflow from outside the park to replenish stocks. Other concerns about water supply are that the flow of water into the park is not measured accurately, water may be removed along the channels connecting the source to the property, siltation may have reduced the property’s standing water storage capacity and the cost of electricity to pump water is high and increasing.
Looking ahead, securing a long-term and reliable supply of appropriate water is critical to maintain the ecological balance (IUCN, 2023). Water requirements need to be clarified, and water quality from different sources should be considered.
To address this, a new study has been proposed and requested by the park management to evaluate any changes in the water requirements which might have come and would help in managing the wetland accordingly (State Party of India, 2024).

Biological System Management, Removing/Reducing Human Management

(Loss of heronry nesting trees)

Data Deficient

Inside site

, Scattered(5-15%)

The loss of one of the property's largest heronries, near the place called Sapan Mori (Gupta, 2021), may have had a significant impact on the breeding success of at least some of the 15 heronry species (IUCN, 2023). The new heronry trees, on smaller mounds, appear less mature and seem to offer smaller tree crowns for the herons, egrets, storks, ibis and cormorants to nest in. It would be helpful to assess the nesting attempts and breeding success of each species to understand whether the newer heronry sites meet the needs of a sustainable heronry of global significance.

Potential Threats

Very Low Threat

Threats from road development and traffic expansion along the periphery of the site, as well as the potential intensification and change in agricultural practices, require close attention in partnership with the Eco-Development Committee within the Eco-Sensitive Zone. Past potential threats, such as the disposal of livestock carcass near property, have been resolved (State Party of India, 2024).

Roads, Trails & Railroads

(National or state highways)

Very Low Threat

Outside site

National Highway 11 passes in front of the property and there has been a substantial increase in heavy traffic since inscription in 1985, and in urban development along the road adjacent to the property. The Eco-Sensitive Zone for the property, which was notified by Order SO2606(E) on 19 July 2019 and surrounds the entire property, prohibits and regulates certain development activities (State Party, 2019). These provisions are, however, often violated (Gupta, 2021). Appropriate implementation of the Zonal Master Plan for the Eco-Sensitive Zone should reduce threats from urban development and activity adjacent to the property.

Protection and management

Assessing Protection and Management

Involvement of stakeholders and rightsholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, in decision-making processes

Mostly Effective

As part of reciprocal commitments for park management, local communities and park management are working together on many aspects of management. Eco Development Committees (EDC) 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 (World Heritage Committee, 2012; State Party of India, 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 (State Party of India, 2012a). The extent to which they are actively involved in decision-making is not clear. Local communities, through EDCs, are engaged in some of the important activities of PA management, including the removal of invasive species Prosopis juliflora, Water Hyacinth and African Cat Fish. EDC members are also engaged in tourism support activities like rickshaw pulling and as visitor guides etc.

Legal framework

Highly Effective

The legal status of the property has remained the same since its inscription on the World Heritage List. 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 (State Party of India, 2012a). As a National Park, the property has the maximum protection status in India. With the legal notification of Eco-sensitive Zone (State Party of India, 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 projects; 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 demarcation and listing of prohibited and regulatory activities, further strengthen the legal measures for conservation of biodiversity values of the property. The State Party in coordination with district administration has prepared the Zonal Master Plan for notified ESZ (State Party of India, 2024).

Governance arrangements

Some Concern

Keoladeo National Park is the property of the State of Rajasthan of the Indian Union. It is managed by the Forest Department of the State of Rajasthan. A key challenge is that effective governance to maintain the OUV involves critical considerations that are external to the property. These are primarily the provision of sufficient appropriate water and ensuring that the area around the property is not overdeveloped. The first is a significant governance challenge involving a range of district, state and federal entities, and competing demands for water, and the second requires effective governance with a range of EDCs and the implementation of Eco-Sensitive Zone management.

Integration into local, regional and national planning systems (including sea/landscape connectivity)

Mostly Effective

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 (State Party of India 2012a, 2017, 2019). In the landscape surrounding Keoladeo National Park, there are many wetlands both big and small; seasonal and perennial. The property’s water regulation falls under a large number of planning and management systems. The migratory waterfowl arriving in this region get distributed in these wetlands as they move in between the wetlands for feeding and roosting. There are no barriers to the free movement in the flight corridors of the birds.

Boundaries

Mostly Effective

The property had well defined boundaries at the time of its inscription on the World Heritage List, but no buffer zone has been defined. This is partly due to the property being enclosed within a 2.6m high boundary wall which provides significant protection from surrounding activities (UNESCO and IUCN, 2008). The ESZ for the property, notified by Order SO2606(E) dated July 2019, 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. The State Party has been encouraged to consider formalizing the ESZ as a World Heritage buffer zone by submitting a proposal for a minor boundary modification, in accordance with paragraph 164 of the Operational Guidelines (World Heritage Committee, 2023).

Overlapping international designations

Mostly Effective

The boundaries of the World Heritage site coincide with the Ramsar site boundaries. Both designations state the same extent, 2,873 ha. Management authorities of the two designations are in regular contact (State Party of India, 2023). The adopted management plan (Gupta, 2021) appears to address management requirements of both designations, however it remains unclear how management authorities collaborate on site.

Implementation of World Heritage Committee decisions and recommendations

Mostly Effective

The State Party has sought to implement Committee Decisions and recommendations, although some actions have required time. For example, the 2023 IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission was first requested in a 2018 Committee Decision and only took place in 2023. 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 (State Party of India, 2017, 2019, 2022, 2024). 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 (State Party of India, 2024). 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 (World Heritage Committee, 2014). The encouragement to consider formalizing the ESZ as a World Heritage buffer zone by submitting a proposal for a minor boundary modification, in accordance with paragraph 164 of the Operational Guidelines (World Heritage Committee, 2023) remained unaddressed.

Climate action

Data Deficient

There is no explicit consideration of climate change and its impact on the property's OUV, nor of required climate mitigation or adaptation measures.

Management plan and overall management system

Some Concern

The Management Plan of 2002-2006 has been updated for the period 2010-2014, up to 2017, and again in 2021 following a 4-year gap. The 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. The current 2020-2030 management plan was drafted with stakeholder consultations (IUCN Consultation, 2020), following a four year gap between the conclusion of the last management planning period (2017) and sign off of the plan in July 2021 (IUCN, 2023), and submitted to the 2023 IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission for review (State Party of India, 2024). While clear objectives and actions address some of the challenges faced by the property, it remains unclear how the management objectives and actions will directly benefit the property’s OUV, as well as through which monitoring system it will be measured.

Law enforcement

Some Concern

According to the State Party (State Party of India, 2023), “there are major deficiencies in capacity/resources to enforce legislation and/or regulation in the World Heritage property”. While the legal framework is considered adequate, there are deficiencies in implementation. Violations of the provisions of the ESZ are reported (Gupta, 2021). 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. Along a road that encircles the park along the boundary wall on all sides protection chowkis are located at every 2 to 3 km. Issues with the breaching of open drains carrying water to the property to use water for irrigation have been raised (pers. comm.)

Sustainable finance

Mostly Effective

60% of the property’s overall funding is provided by the National/Federal Government and 30% by the Regional/Provincial Government. The State Party reports that the available budget is acceptable but further funding would enable more effective management to international best practice standard. Individual visitor charges cover the remainder. The existing sources of funding are secure in the medium-term and planning is underway to secure funding in the long-term (State Party of India, 2023). 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 UN Foundation (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) (World Heritage Committee, 2012).

Staff capacity, training and development

Some Concern

There is sufficient staff to manage necessary functions. A site-based capacity building plan is in place and partially implemented; some technical skills are being transferred to those managing the property locally, but most technical work is carried out by external staff (State Party of India, 2023). There has been a high turnover of Directors in recent years which will most likely lead to a lack of continuity of direction and approach to implementing the Management Plan. The vacant position of Range Office with responsibility for research since early 2023 (IUCN, 2023) is critical, as this role ensures that management is tied with monitoring and research on the maintenance of the property’s OUV.

Education and interpretation programmes

Some Concern

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 (State Party of India, 2023)
Whilst there are limited information facilities, and 'Eco-tourism, Interpretation and Conservation Education' is a theme in the current Management Plan, the property does not have a coherent programme of education. Activities are restricted to special occasions and there is a lack of content, with existing facilities, such as the Salim Ali Interpretation Centre considered outdated (Gupta, 2021). The present Management Plan does consider the linkages between tourism, nature and interpretation and this Chapter of the Plan could be the basis for a clear education and interpretation strategy that maximises awareness whilst minimising impact on the OUV (e.g. through disturbance or new infrastructure, including paths and roads).

Tourism and visitation management

Some Concern

The current Management Plan (2017-2027) indicates a range of issues from congestion and poor ticketing arrangements at the entrance to the property to overcrowding during holidays (Gupta, 2021). The visitor experience is also limited by outdated interpretation and tourist facilitation infrastructure. For the most part, tourists use the main road from the entrance to the Keoladeo Temple and may walk a few metres along of the trails that run off this road. The overall need to manage tourist impact on areas away from this road are, therefore, fairly modest. However, within the park, there have been reports of tourists often behaving irresponsibly such as disturbing wildlife e.g. basking Indian Rock pythons. Such behaviours need to be managed. With the notification of Eco-sensitive 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).

Sustainable use

Mostly Effective

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 utilized 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. Further evaluation of other potential sustainable use could be explored.

Monitoring

Some Concern

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. Data on breeding and overwintering waterbird numbers are gathered, but there seem to be several problems with the methodologies used (IUCN, 2023). As a result, there is no sound basis from which trends in numbers of either breeding waterbirds or those that overwinter can be assessed. Documenting changes from year to year in the numbers of individual species is critical to understanding whether the range of wetland habitats remains suitable for the diversity of species that comprise the OUV.

Research

Some Concern

Whilst there are scientific studies being carried out there is little that is directly related towards management needs at the site (State Party of India, 2023). There is no dedicated research programme and limited consistent engagement with external academic institutions. Given the research needs to inform management at the property, this is a concern, because of the changes that have taken place at this artificial wetland since the 1980s. Key research needs are attributes that define the OUV and measurable targets for each of them that define their desirable conservation status.

Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats outside the site

Some Concern

At the time of the IUCN evaluation mission, the lack of a buffer zone to the site due to physical constraints was noted. 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 established to prohibit and regulate various activities which may affect the long term sustainability of park but reliable annual water flow is key. While effective legislative protection is in place, deficiencies in implementation lead to violations of regulations in eco-sensitive zones (Gupta, 2021). This suggests limited effectiveness beyond the property's boundaries. Whilst there have been significant steps taken to improve the water supply to the property, this seems likely to remain an annual cause for concern, given that water and water budgeting is increasingly becoming a political issue (IUCN, 2023). An appropriate governance system is needed to satisfy water demands of not only the property (up to the 750 mcft), but also local communities and neighbouring districts, state and federal entities.

Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats inside the site

Mostly Effective

Management is effective in the day to- day running of the site. Habitat improvement operations are now being executed through the eco-development committees to address the continuous spread of Prosopis juliflora and Paspalum distichum causing a change in the mosaic of wetland habitats, potentially impacting the diversity of resident and overwintering waterbirds. The management effectiveness is however limited by the lack of a consistent monitoring and research program (or its implementation) addressing the property’s OUV, partly due to lacking staff capacity and training.

Overall assessment of protection and management

Good practice examples

Removal of invasive alien species has been carried out by the property management authority by involving the local communities. The development of the Eco-Development Committees represented a significant positive step and there are instances, such as the African Catfish and Water Hyacinth removal above, where they have contributed significantly to the property's management objectives. Since there are legal restraints on commercial removal of any produce from protected areas in India, it could only be distributed for the bona fide livelihood use of the communities living around the park.
Eco-friendly tourism is practiced in the property, as tourists visit the park on bicycle rickshaws, bicycles and on foot only, suggesting fairly minimal impacts on habitats and species, and a close experience with nature.

State and trend of values

Assessing the current state and trend of values

An area which provides unique and globally significant natural habitats for abundant populations of both resident and migratory waterbirds

Low Concern

Trend

Data Deficient

Many of the threats to the OUV of the site have been reduced by management interventions. Appropriate water supply remains a serious management concern for the State Party. The site receives water from three different sources (in addition to rainfall) - perennial Chambal river through pipeline, and excessive canal water through Govardhan drainage and Pachna dam. Due to this, the park has not been completely dry in recent years but the annual variations mean that the minimum water flow is not consistently being achieved (IUCN, 2023). However, the water supply is, to a large extent, out of the immediate control of the property’s management, and requires engagement at a wider political level given the unpredictable rains and the increasing water demand for agriculture and domestic consumption (IUCN, 2023).
In recent years, the spread of invasive species such as Cat fish (Clarias gariepinus) and aquatic macrophyte (Eichhornia crassipes) are controlled to a larger extent (IUCN, 2023). The ongoing eradication efforts of P. juliflora have slowed down, but not reversed, the spread of the species (Devananda et al. 2024). The native grass Paspalum distichum is also spreading and is seen as undesirable. The impact of these changes on the habitats within the property and, ultimately, its OUV is not clear. Whilst there are total bird counts made each year, the robustness of the approach and the detail of sampling design and field protocol used are not clear. While in 2016 a total of 20,760 birds in heronry were counted, in 2019, the total count of birds was 56,674 (Anon, 2019). The Siberian Crane, previously the flagship species of the park, has not been observed at the site since 2002 (State Party of India, 2024); however, this is reported to be due to threats that the population of the Siberian Crane faced outside the site along its distribution and migration range.
Engagement of local communities in PA management work through Eco-development Committees (EDCs) in 16 peripheral villages, appear to be having overall positive impact on the park’s conservation values.

Summary of values

Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values

Low Concern

Data Deficient

Assessment of the current state and trend of other important biodiversity values

Low Concern

Data Deficient

The range of habitats created by the artificial wetlands and adjacent terrestrial habitats provide a diversity of habitats for taxonomic groups other than birds and fish. The park has one of the highest population densities of Indian Rock Python. While, some tourism related disturbance is reported, their population is stable. For example, Chandra et al (2011) considered the floral richness of the property to be remarkable for this semi-arid area. However, changes in the balance of habitats since inscription of the property have been observed, because of challenges in providing regular water supplies and the increase in invasive species, notably Prosopis juliflora. This is leading to the extension of drier habitats and a decrease in wetland area, leading to a change in species diversity, although a detailed assessment is missing. For example, the densities of three major herbivore species, Wild Boar (Sus scrofa), Chital (Spotted Deer: Axis axis) and Nilgai (Blue Bull: Boselaphus tragocamelus) appear to have increased over 25 years (Singh et al., 2017), and this may well indicate a transition across the property to drier habitats overall. An up-to-date assessment of the fish assemblage would be helpful to understand any changes since inscription.

Additional information

Benefits

Understanding benefits

Outdoor recreation and tourism

There is a steady influx of tourists to the park and in particular bird-watchers. During holidays this can lead to overcrowding along the main road (Gupta 2021).

The number of tourists and their behaviour need to be managed, including at Rock Python basking sites (see Gupta 2021)

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 extent for which this still applies needs clarification.

Factors negatively affecting provision of this benefit

Invasive species

Impact level - Very High

Trend - Increasing

Summary of benefits

The involvement of local communities and stakeholders in the management of Keoladeo National Park has been facilitated to a limited extent through the establishment of Eco-Development Committees (EDCs). These have been formed based on the proximity of villages to the property and also on their perceived dependence on the property. Their aim is to engage local participation in projects promoting sustainable use of land and other resources, as well as activities which are not deleterious to the property. Local communities can become involved in the protection and preservation of the OUV of the property. Another benefit from the property is the large number of nature tourists and bird watchers who visit the park. 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).

References

№	References
1	Anon (2019). Eco-sensitive Zone of Keoladeo National Park. Gazette Notification, Govt. of India. 19 July 2019.
2	Anon (2020). Eco-sensitive Zone of Keoladeo National Park. Amendment. Gazette Notification, Govt. of India. 21 February 2020.
3	Chandra, R., Prusty, B. A. K., & Azeez, P. A. (2011). A revised checklist of the flora of Keoladeo national park, a world heritage site in India. Environmental Research Journal, 5(1/2), 1–18. Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326059734_A_revise…;
4	Devananda, K., Reddy, C.S. and Arigela, R.K. (2024). Tracking five decades (1972–2024) of spatio-temporal dynamics and hotspots of Prosopis juliflora in Keoladeo national park, a World Heritage Site. Spat. Inf. Res. 32, 815–828. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1007/s41324-024-00598-6>;.
5	Gupta, M. (2021). Management Plan - Keoladeo National Park. Unpublished document submitted by Deputy Conservator of Forests (WL) Bharatpur. [The plan is not dated but was signed off in July 2021].
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 (2023). Report on the IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission to Keoladeo National Park (India), 13-17 February 2023. [online] IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available at: <https://whc.unesco.org/document/200657>;. [Accessed 23 April 2025].
8	IUCN Consultation (2011). IUCN World Heritage Confidential Consultation form: Keoladeo National Park, India.
9	IUCN Consultation (2017). IUCN World Heritage Confidential Consultation form: Keoladeo National Park, India.
10	IUCN Consultation (2020). IUCN World Heritage Confidential Consultation form: Keoladeo National Park, India.
11	Middleton, B.A., Van Der Valk, A.G., Williams, R.L., Mason, D.H. and Davis, C.B. (1991). Vegetation dynamics and seed banks of a monsoonal wetland overgrown with Paspalum distichum in northern India. Aquatic Botany, 40, 239–259. Available at: <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/03043…;
12	Mukherjee, A., Kumara, H.N., 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. Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Honnavalli-Kumara/publ…;.
13	Mukherjee, A., Pal, A., Velankar, A. D., Kumara, H. N., & Bhupathy, S. (2019). Stay awhile in my burrow! Interspecific associations of vertebrates to Indian crested porcupine burrows. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 31(4), 313–328. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1080/03949370.2019.1594392>;.
14	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. Biodiversity and Conservation 26: 2839-2856. Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317844942_Invasive…;.
15	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. Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318316209_An_Updat…;.
16	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].
17	State Party of India (2012a). Periodic Reporting Section II. Keoladeo National Park. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: <https://whc.unesco.org/document/164630>;.
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 (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].
20	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].
21	State Party of India (2024). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Keoladeo National Park (India). [online] Available at: <https://whc.unesco.org/document/218293>;. [Accessed 23 April 2025].
22	UNESCO and IUCN (2008). Report on the UNESCO-IUCN Mission to Keoladeo National Park (India), 10-16 March 2008. [online] Paris, France and Gland, Switzerland: UNESCO World Heritage Centre and IUCN. Available at: <https://whc.unesco.org/document/100720>;.
23	Van der Valk, A.G, Middleton, B.A., Williams, R.L., Mason, D.H. and Davis, C.B. (1993). The biomass of an Indian monsoonal wetland before and after being overgrown with Paspalum distichum L Vegetatio, 109 (1993), pp. 81-90. Available at: <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00149547>;
24	Vijayan, V.S. (1991) Keoladeo National Park ecology study. Final report, 1980–1990: Mumbai, India, Bombay Natural History Society.
25	World Heritage Committee (2012). Decision: 36 COM 8E Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value. In: Decisions Adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th Session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: <https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4841>;. [Accessed 26 February 2014].
26	World Heritage Committee (2023). Decision 45 COM 7B.82. [online] UNESCO World Heritage Centre. In: WHC/21/44.COM/18. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/8275 [Accessed on 23 April 2025]

Indigenous Heritage values

Download PDF