WII Technical Reports/Books/Manuals

Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://192.168.202.180:4000/handle/123456789/314

Browse

Has files: YesSubject: search.filters.subject.People participation

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    World heritage biodiversity programme for India
    (Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 2003) Mathur, V.B.; Krishnaswamy, Jagdish; Singsit, S.; Bawa, Kamajit S.; Ishwar, N.M.; Vanak, Abi Tamim
    India, one of the earliest signatories to the World Heritage Convention has five key Protected Areas currently on UNESCO’s World Heritage List - Kaziranga and Manas in Assam, Keoladeo Ghana in Rajasthan, Sundarbans in West Bengal and Nanda Devi in Uttaranchal. All five sites satisfy the natural heritage criterion ‘contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science and conservation’ (iv) and hence are critical to the preservation of globally Significant biodiversity. A strong potential exists to build and to strengthen the constellation of India’s World Heritage Biodiversity (WHB) sites in ways that are exemplary and beneficial for the larger network of PAs in India and abroad. The World Heritage Convention also offers a unique possibility in India to link nature and culture in innovative ways to promote conservation of species like the tiger and the elephant at a nation-wide scale. India presents the greatest challenge anywhere in the world for integrating conservation and development on a grand scale, and success here could have major implications for other parts of the developing world. The WHB sites symbolize humanity's struggle to conserve the earth's precious biological heritage against its own onslaught of nature. Combined with other Protected Areas such as National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, WHB sites represent the last stand of the nature and the best hope for humanity to conserve our most precious endowment. India represents a remarkable example of successful efforts to conserve significant amounts of biodiversity against all odds. Despite the presence of more than one billion people, India has managed to place 154,826 km? of its land area under its PA network. Considerable amount of biodiversity also occurs in habitats outside protected areas. Furthermore, protected areas in India are among the best-managed reserves in the developing world. The WHB sites and other Protected Areas in India, however, remain highly vulnerable to degradation. As islands, these areas are surrounded by harsh biophysical landscapes and alienated local communities. The PA management is not fully equipped to deal with the growing threats to the parks. The staff is inadequately trained in the enforcement of laws protecting wildlife. In some cases such as Manas in the northeast, field staff is demoralized, having suffered setbacks due to insurgency and social turmoil in the area. Moreover, the field staff have neither access to good communications nor to facilities for health and education for themselves and their families and the basic infrastructure required for the effective management of the PAs are generally lacking. World Heritage Biodiversity Programme for . At higher levels, the park management has been unable to incorporate concepts of conservation science and wildlife management in developing management plans. Since parks represent habitat islands surrounded by dissimilar habitats with high densities of human populations, changes inside the park due to intrinsic and extrinsic factors are inevitable. However, there is no significant effort to adopt a systems approach to anticipate and predict future changes. Continuous assessment and monitoring of biodiversity are almost non-existent. The "island" status of the World Heritage sites also makes them highly vulnerable to anthropogenic pressures. Although these islands are connected to varying degrees with other natural habitats, there have been no comprehensive efforts to examine the feasibility of establishing habitat connectivity in areas containing the WBH sites. Since the areas surrounding sites are even more vulnerable to human pressures than the WBH sites, it is critical to examine the potential of connection among natural areas wherever these sites are located and to bring these areas under greater protection. A more serious problem is the lack of local community involvement in conservation efforts. Local communities in many cases remain hostile to the idea that the parks cannot be used for their traditional purposes of grazing, fishing, or extraction of fuel wood and non-timber forest products. Wild animals from the parks also pose a danger to their livestock, crops and houses, thus exacerbating the conflict. Thus, local communities perceive conservation legislation as a threat to their livelihoods. Although there are economic benefits from conservation, such as ecotourism, such benefits generally do not accrue to local communities. Protected areas also have a low profile. The civil society in general is not aware of the importance and in some cases even the existence of World Heritage sites. Although the protected areas have a tremendous educational potential, educational institutions hardly ever use world heritage sites for educational purposes. A new initiative funded by the United Nations Foundation (UNF) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and coordinated by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India initially covering four existing and ten proposed World Heritage Cluster Sites in India has been initiated to address the key conservation and management issues within a single new framework. This framework referred to as the ‘World Heritage Biodiversity Programme for India (WHBPI)’ has been developed through a collaborative planning process by the, Wildlife Institute of India (WII) and the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE). The ten year WHBP' will have two phases of four and six years each. Four of the existing five WHB sites in India namely Kaziranga, Keoladeo, Manas and Nanda Devi National Parks have been included in the WHBPI. programme as it is receiving a similar support from the Asian Development Bank under the ‘Sunderbans Biodiversity Project’. The goal of the WHBPI is to strengthen biodiversity conservation in Protected Areas by \ building replicable models at WHB sites that emphasize law enforcement, promote habitat integrity and connectivity, enhance the role of local communities in Protected Area management, improve the professional, social and political profile of the Protected Area management community and its civil society partners. The specific objectives of WHBP! are to: 1) increase the capacity of the staff to address critical needs in conservation, management and protection of the WHB sites, (2) enable the . park staff to incorporate principal concepts of modem science in management plans, (3) increase the connectivity among natural areas in the vicinity of the WHB sites, (4) enhance the stake and the involvement of local communities in the management and the protection of the parks, (5) raise the profile of the WHB sites in civil society, (6) bring about policy and governance reforms so that the management have the flexibility to address contemporary challenges to the conservation of biodiversity in the parks, and (7) conduct surveys at sites that may be designated as additional World Heritage. Biodiversity cluster sites.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Status survey of Migratory birds and key wildlife in Bikarner district, Rajasthan
    (Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 2021) Dutta, S.; Kher, V.; Uddin, M.; Supakar, S.; Karkaria, T.; Gupta, T.; Paul I; Verma, V.; Pandey, D.; Verma, V.; Phasalkar, P.; Khanra, A.; Jora, V.S.; Kataria, P.S.; Chhangani, A.K.; Bipin, C.M.; Jhala, Y.V.
    The Bikaner district of Rajasthan supports a wide variety of wildlife that has not been rigorously surveyed in the past. Robust status assessments with reproducible methods are vital for monitoring wildlife trends, particularly in regions like Bikaner that are undergoing large-scale land-use changes, which are potentially detrimental to native wildlife. Therefore, a large-scale survey was organised by the Wildlife Institute of India in collaboration with Rajasthan Forest Department, Government Dungar College and Maharaja Ganga Singh University to assess the status of key wildlife in the Bikaner district of Western Rajasthan. Notably, this survey was planned at the request of Bikaner district residents, who conveyed their wish to conduct a wildlife survey to the Hon’ble Member of Parliament, who invited the Wildlife Institute of India through the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change and to execute the survey. Consequently, the data collection was conducted in a citizen science framework and involved active participation by a diverse group of researchers, frontline staff, University students and wildlife enthusiasts. The survey assessed the distribution and abundance status of key wildlife, particularly migratory, arid-adapted and raptorial species of birds, their habitat associations, potential threats in the landscape, and community perceptions towards conservation. The Bikaner parliamentary constituency was divided into four sampling blocks (Bikaner, Kolayat, Chattargarh and Mahajan) and overlaid with 144 km2 (12 x 12 km grid) cells. A total of 89 such cells covering 12,816 km2 area were extensively surveyed using vehicle transect method. In each cell, dirt-trails or unpaved roads of 16.2 ± 4.1km length were traversed using slow-moving vehicles and animals were recorded during peak activity periods (0700hrs-1300hrs and 1600hrs-1900hrs). Data on iconic native fauna (chinkara, foxes, bustards, cranes and raptors) and key neobiota (dog, pig and nilgai) was collected on these vehicle transects (1442 km total length). Information on small birds, habitat characteristics and anthropogenic disturbances was recorded at regularly placed transect stop-over points (802 points). Major avian congregations or 'hotspots' (carcass dump at Jodbeed, wetlands and lakes at Gajner, Lunkaransar, RD507 and RD750) were surveyed using simultaneous point-counts and line transects. Community perception towards conservation was assessed using structured questionnaires conducted in select households of randomly selected villages. Species' population estimates were obtained using analytical techniques such as distance sampling and simultaneous block counts. During the survey, 1,880 Chinkara individuals were detected in 684 herds with an encounter rate of 139.78±18.72 individuals per 100km. The estimated density of chinkara in the surveyed area was 4.27±0.65 individuals/km2, yield abundance of 54,745±8,392 individuals 12 in the surveyed area. Similarly, 112 desert foxes were seen during the survey and the density was estimated to be 0.58±0.11 foxes/km2, yielding abundance of 7,456±1,356 individuals. Other mammals recorded during the survey were Desert Cat (0.57±0.2 individuals/100km), Nilgai (14.39±2.91 individuals/100km), free-ranging Domestic Dogs (26.07±3.6 individuals/100km) and Indian Wolf (one sighting). Among large birds, the encounter rate of the Demoiselle Crane was estimated at 5.47±3.14 individuals/100km. The five most common raptor species (individuals per 100 km) were Griffon Vulture (16.44±6.94), Egyptian Vulture (8.73±2.35), Common Kestrel (7.39±0.88), Black-winged Kite (5.35±0.89) and Long-legged Buzzard (5.13±0.69). Among small birds, 2,859 individuals from 103 species were recorded on point counts. The most abundant species were Common Babbler, Eurasian collared Dove, House Sparrow, White-eared Bulbul, Red-vented Bulbul, Greater short-toed Lark and Variable Wheatear. The total density of small birds, excluding birds in flight and rare species, was estimated at 997±58 individuals/km2. A total of 24,674 individual birds belonging to 95 species across 36 families were recorded during hotspot surveys. RD750 had the highest number of individuals and species (15,666 individuals of 76 species), followed by RD507 (6,501 individuals of 34 species), Lunkaransar lake (1,749 individuals of 25 species) and Gajner lake (758 individuals of 38 species). Common Coot, Demoiselle Crane, Common Pochard, Common Teal and Gadwall were the most abundant species that were recorded. Two Endangered (Egyptian Vulture and Steppe Eagle), two Vulnerable (Common Pochard and River Tern), and six Near-Threatened species (Black-headed Ibis, Dalmatian Pelican, Eurasian Curlew, Ferruginous Duck, Northern Lapwing, and Painted Stork) were recorded during the hotspot survey. The habitat was characterised by flat and mildly undulating terrain, dominated by scrublands followed by agriculture (fallow and cultivated). Active disturbance such as humans or livestock was present in 72% of surveyed plots. Passive disturbance such as fences, electric lines, paved road/ highway etc., was recorded at 87% of the points. In terms of vegetation, the most dominant natural vegetation was Kheemp (Leptadenia pyrotechnica) > Khejri (Prosopis cineraria) > Bhui (Aerva sp.) > Phog (Calligonum polygonoides) > Chugh (Crotalaria burhia) > Aak (Calotropis procera) > Ganthia (Dactyloctenium scindicum) > Prosopis juliflora. There was a positive association between the presence of fences and that of cultivation, human, livestock, dog, water-source and power-lines, indicating that fences could be a proxy for other disturbances. We found distinct associations between species and habitat. Plants such as Leptadenia and Calligonum occurred more in undulating and less disturbed areas. Aerva occurred more in sandy, less disturbed areas, whereas Prosopis juliflora and Calotropis procera occurred more in flat, disturbed areas. Faunal species such as Chinkara decreased 13 in abundance with the proportion of area under cultivation while Nilgai showed an opposite trend. Desert Fox and Desert cat did not show any response to habitat gradients, whereas dogs were more abundant in flat, disturbed areas. Steppe Eagle, Egyptian Vulture and Laggar Falcon decreased in abundance along canal-irrigated areas. Birds such as Eurasian collared dove, Grey Francolin, Indian Robin and Indian Peafowl preferred flat terrain. Presence of disturbances favoured the Common Babbler, Eurasian Collared Dove, Grey Francolin, Red Vented Bulbul and Variable Wheatear, but negatively impacted the Ashy-crowned Sparrow Lark, Greater Short-toed Lark and Yellow-eyed Pigeon. Questionnaires were conducted with 170 respondents in 61 villages spread over 24 cells. 1.7±1.0% of respondents reported seeing a Great Indian Bustard (Ardeotis nigriceps) around their villages in the past 5 years. The reporting frequency of dog, nilgai and fox was higher than that of chinkara, crane and wild pig. More people reported an increasing population trend for neo-colonised species (dogs, nilgai and wild pigs) than for native species (chinkara, fox or crane). On similar lines, more people reported that native biota (particularly chinkara and vultures followed by cranes and peafowls) have reduced in occurrence over the past few years. Habitat loss due to agricultural expansion and associated activities (fencing, pesticide usage, borewell irrigation etc.) was the most widely reported cause for wildlife decline; other causes being poaching, predation by dogs, climate change and powerlines. A high percentage of respondents (85±3%) were aware of a conservation area (managed either traditionally as Orans or by the Forest Department) around their village. 12±3 % of respondents complained regarding encroachment of Orans around their villages. Our survey highlights that Bikaner region is undergoing rapid land-use changes due to intensive irrigated agriculture, infrastructure and industries. To understand their ecological impacts, regular assessments of wildlife populations through standard, reproducible methods become important. Based on this survey and consultation with Rajasthan Forest Department and local experts, the following preliminary recommendations are suggested: a) greater conservation emphasis on sites such as Jorbeed Conservation Reserve, Deshnok Oran, Tokla Oran, Bhinjranwali and 750RD, b) mitigation of potential threats such as power-lines, fences and free-ranging dogs, c) protection of Orans from encroachment and development of grasslands for wildlife/livestock use, d) development of sites such as RD750 and Lunkaransar lake for ecotourism through careful and consultative planning, e) and replication of this survey for assessing wildlife trends.