It includes the application of Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) in one of Ramsar site of India ie Harike Wetland of Punjab, India

1. 1
Management Effectiveness Assessment for
Wetlands Conservation and its Application in Harike
Wetland, Punjab, India
Summer internship presentation at WETLANDS INTERNATIONAL
-MEGHA GUPTA
-M.Sc. NRM 2nd year

2. Objective
Its specific objectives are as follows:
• To map the relevance of protected area categories for
wetlands.
• To track management effectiveness assessment of protected
areas.
• To compare and contrast different management effectiveness
tracking tools.
• Application of METT in one Ramsar site i.e. Harike Wetland,
Punjab for a superior comprehension of wetland
administration in India.
• Objective was achieved using GEF software, review of
literature and information accessible on the web.
2

3. IUCN- The World Conservation Union defines PROTECTED AREA as: land
and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of
biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and
managed through legal , other effective means, in six categories:
Ia,
5.00%
Ib,
1.00%
II,
4.00%
III,
20.00%
IV,
27.00%
V,
6.00%
VI,
4.00%
no IUCN
categor
y,
33.00%
Ia
• Strict Nature Reserve
• Ex: Wetlands located within core area of National
Parks
Ib
•Wildnerness area
•Ex:High altitude wetlands
II
•National Park
•Ex: Kanwar Lake Bird Sanctuary, Bihar
III
•Natural monument or feature
IV
• Habitat/Species Area Management
• Ex: Wetlands important for the perspective of species
habitat
V
•Protected landscape/ Seascape
•Ex: Coral Reefs
VI
• Protected Area with sustainable use of natural
resources
• Ex: Most compatible with wise use approaches
Source: Google

4. What is a wetland?
According to Ramsar Convention of
Wetland Treaty, Wetlands are areas of
marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether
natural or artificial, permanent or temporary,
with water that is static or flowing, fresh,
brackish or salt, including areas of marine
water the depth of which at low tide does
not exceed six metres.
Wetlands are the
link between the land and the water.
They are transition zones where the
flow of water, the cycling of nutrients,
and the energy of the sun meet to
produce a unique ecosystem
characterized by hydrology, soils, and
vegetation
An intergovernmental treaty -
embodies the commitments of its
member countries to plan for the "wise
use", or sustainable use, of all of the
wetlands in their territories.

5. What are the ecological
functions (services) and
resource values that wetlands
provide?

6. Wetlands provide fundamental ecological services and are regulators of water regimes and
sources of biodiversity at all levels - species, genetic and ecosystem.
Wetlands constitute a resource of great economic, scientific, cultural, and recreational value
for the community.
Wetlands play a vital role in climate change adaptation and mitigation.
Progressive encroachment on, and loss of, wetlands cause serious and sometimes
irreparable environmental damage to the provision of ecosystem services.
Wetlands should be restored and rehabilitated, whenever possible.
Wetlands should be conserved by ensuring their wise use

7. Model of Human-Induced
Impacts on Wetlands
Increased
Water
Increased
Nutrients Increased
Disturbance
Natural
Wetland
Decreased
Disturbance
Decreased
Nutrients
Decreased
Water
Drainage
Flood control
leading to reduced
spring siltation
Fire suppression,
Flood control, Water
level stabilization
Eutrophication,
Siltation
Burning,
Reservoir
construction,
Off-road
vehicles
Flooding
impeding
natural
drainage

8. History of Management
Effectiveness Assessment
 Paul Sarasin in 1910 proposed a committee to establish WCPA
 A commission on National Parks was established in 1960 when an
international community asked IUCN to take responsibility of preparing a
world list of National Parks.
 In 1984, the list by IUCN-CNPPA described inadequate management
resources, human encroachment, change in water regime, adjacent land
development etc
 The World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable
Use (‘the Alliance’) was formed in April 1998, in response to the depletion of
the world’s forest biodiversity and of forest-based goods and services
essential for sustainable development.
 Debate on nomenclature and how to classify or categorize protected areas
were discussed in 1st conference on National Parks, Seattle.
 2nd conference on National Parks held in Yellowstone, USA addresses the
confusion between national park and nature reserve where issues like
management effectiveness and financial support raised.
8

9. WCPA Framework
9
Context
• focuses on status of threats & vulnerability of protected
areas
Planning
• includes legislation and policy, system design and
management planning
Input
• assesses resources
Process
• contains efficiency and appropriateness
Output
• provides results of management action, services and
products
Outcome
• reveals effects of management in relation to objectives.

10. Target of The World
Bank/WWF Alliance
 As part of its work programme the Alliance set a target relating to
management effectiveness of forest protected areas:
75 million hectares of existing forest protected areas under
improved management to achieve conservation and development
outcomes by 2010.
 To evaluate progress towards this target the Alliance published in
2003 a simple site-level Tracking Tool to facilitate reporting on
management effectiveness of protected areas within WWF and
World Bank projects.
10

11. Status Of Protected Areas
 Protected areas grew dramatically over the
time period. As per 2016 Wildlife Database
Cell, current status is as follows:
11
No. Total area
(Km2)
Coverage %
of country
National Parks 103 40500.13 1.23
Wildlife Sanctuary 537 118005.3 3.59
Conservation reserves 67 2349.38 0.07
Community reserves 26 46.93 0.001
Protected Areas 733 160901.4 4.89
Source: National Wildlife Database Cell, Wildlife Institute of India

12. Need for Management
Effectiveness Assessment
 Governments, funding agencies and
stakeholders who were to benefit from
protected areas need to evaluate whether
results are proportionate with the efforts
and resources being spent.
 So, they required information on
management effectiveness
12

13. Different Tracking Tools
 Assessing Management Effectiveness of Wildlife Protected Areas published in 1999 is
based on surveying a questionnaire all over India.
 Strength: Development of a species gap analysis.
 Weakness: Ensuring the completion of such lengthy questionnaire and authentication of data
received.
 Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM)
published in 2003 by WWF, based on scorecard questionnaire which gives broad level
comparison that can be used to develop multiple site level management criteria.
 Strength: Covers network of protected areas in one assessment and allows identification of
threats and management issues across group of protected areas.
 Weakness: Does not provide detailed, site level adaptive management guidance to protected
area managers.
 IUCN (WCPA Marine) and WWF jointly formed the MPS management effectiveness
initiative in 2000; surveyed and refine between 2001 to 2003 and finally published in 2004
sponsored by NOAA and the Packard Foundation.
 Strength: It provides detailed guidance applicable to many different marine protected
environments and provides advice on designing, applying and analysing the system
 Weakness: It is not a complete set of indicators or ‘ready-to-apply’ tool as it emphasises the
need for communication and application of results to adaptive management
13

14. METT
 After surveying in many countries, the Alliance published in 2003, Management
Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), globally applicable generic system to
facilitate reporting on management effectiveness of protected areas within WWF
and World Bank projects to track progress over time rather than to compare sites.
 Strength: Simple and rapid assessment system that provide a baseline on
management effectiveness and outlines the critical information about issues that
need to be addressed as a priority.
 Weakness: The assessments produced are relatively superficial and do not cover all
aspects of management. It cannot compare different sites.
 METT consist of 30 questions - each with a four point scale (0,1,2 and 3). The scale
allows officials to choose whether the situation is acceptable or not.
 Generally 0 is equivalent to no or negligible progress, 1 is some progress; 2 is quite
good but has room for improvement; 3 is approaching optimum situation.
 It is important to spend sufficient time in assessing each aspect of management and
reviewing the existing monitoring results.
 At the time of repeated assessment, some of the same protected area managers and
experts should be involved to ensure the consistency in data.
14

15. Different Tracking Tools
 RAPPmap published in 2003 by same participants as of
RAPPAM. The only difference is it uses satellite imagery to
assess the site
 Strength: Add spatial element to the analysis. Generally
confined to type of threat identified in RAPPAM
 Weakness: It requires skilled professionals to operate it
 R-METT is published in 2015 by The Ramsar Convention is
used to evaluate management effectiveness for ramsar sites. A
different tool is designed for ramsar sites as it itself is a diverse
ecosystem.
15

16. 16
Harike wetland
of Punjab, India
Harike Wetland
 Area: 4,100 ha (Kapurthala, Tarn Taran and Ferozepur
Districts)
 Area under water: 2850 ha o Avifauna : 360 species (74
species of migratory birds)
 Important Migratory Birds: Rudy Shelduck, Northern
Pintail, Common Teal, Mallard, Gadwall, Eurasian
Wigeon, Northern Shoveler, Pochards (Red Crested,
Common and Tued)
 60 indigenous species of fish, 7 species of turtles, 4
species of snakes, 6 taxa of amphibians, 189 taxa of
invertebrates reported
 Threatened species – Schedule 1 species : 4 species of
turtle (Kachuga tecta, K. smithii, Trionyx gangecus and
Geoclemys hamiltonii ) – IUCN Red List: Smooth
Indian oer
 Major Flora: Acacia , Dalbergia, Delonix, Salix,
Syzygium, Zizyphus, Ipomoea, Cyprus, etc. and
medicinal plants like Withania somnifera, Adhatoda
vesica, Boerhavia diffusa, etc.
 Major Threats: Weed growth(Eichhornia crassipes),
siltaon and encroachment o First sighng of dolphin
reported from Harike wetland (Beas river) in December,
2007.
 Important Bird Area (IBA) site of Bombay Natural
History Society (BNHS) and Wildlife Sanctuary (nofied
by Govt. of Punjab)

17. Major Threats to Harike
 Siltation leading to shrinkage of wetland area
 Inflow of pesticide and fertilizer as runoff from
agricultural fields
 Accidental outflow of pollutants from industries
 Lack of appreciation & cooperation: Treated as free
goods of nature ignoring the wetland values and
functions.
 Habitat destruction & degradation
 Environmental pollution & climate change
 Unsustainable developmental model and urbanization
 Infestation of invasive alien species and weed growth
 Lack of coordination amongst concerned line
departments 17

18. Restoration Measures
 Conservation measures were initiated in Harike Wetland
in 1987-88
 Include survey, mapping and plantation
 Various soil conservation measures results in substantial
increase in land value
 Water pollution results in infestation of water hyacinth
18

19. Major initiatives
undertaken
a) Establishment of Protected Area Network of 345 sq.km consisting
13 wildlife sanctuaries, 2 zoological parks, 3 deer parks and 2
community reserves(first in India) for conservation of wild flora and
fauna
b) Launching of “Green Punjab Mission (2012-2020)” to increase
forest cover in the state to 15% at an annual cost of Rs 180 crore
 Diversification of agriculture to reduce area under paddy from 22.5
Lakh ha (2012-13) to 8.5 lakh ha in 2017-18 and promote culvation
of basmati, cotton, maize, sugarcane, pulses, fodder, fruit &
vegetable and agroforestry proposed.
19

20. a) Setting up of Biodiversity Management Committees(BMCs) & Technical Support
Groups(TSGs) in all 22 districts and 33 village levels BMCs in biodiversity rich areas
• Preparation of Districts level People Biodiversity Register`s (PBRs) initiated in 12
districts to document biodiversity & associated traditional knowledge
b) Identification of threatened flora ( 8 species) and fauna ( 5 species) of state
c) Identification of 3 potential Biodiversity Heritage sites along with other biodiversity
rich areas
d) Capacity building and training of BMCs/TSGs members in all districts
e) Conducted 4 special projects/studies with the financial support of National
Biodiversity Authority, UNESCO and Govt. of Punjab
f) Outreach activities

a) Preparation of Strategy and Action plan for Conservation of Biodiversity in Punjab
b) Conducted comprehensive study “Biodiversity in the Shivalik Ecosystem of Punjab”
c) Conservation and management of wetlands
d) Identification and documentation of key species
e) Setting up of wetland Interpretation Centres highlighting biodiversity at Harike,
Kanjli, Ropar and Nangal 20

21. METT in Harike Wetland
 The objective of catalyzing sustainability of protected area systems
was achieved by using GEF-3, GEF-4, GEF-5.
 Datasheet 1 shows the details of the assessment and basic
information about the site.
 The Datasheet 2 provided numerous threats of Harike wetland.
 As per the assessment,
It was found to have high annual and perennial non- timber
crop cultivation, threats to wetland due to high usage of water of
dams, increase in invasive plants/ weed, pollution caused due to
heavy discharge of household sewage and urban wastewater,
industrial, mining and military effluents, garbage and solid waste.
Geographical events such as high amount of erosion and siltation,
climate change due to temperature extremes.
21

22.  There were medium threat to habitats and species
associated with non- consumptive use of biological
resources from recreational activities and tourism,
agricultural and forestry effluents, climate change, loss of
cultural link, traditional knowledge and management
practices. Assessment form includes partial
management, needs improvement in design, medium
enforcement of law. There are considerable survey but
not directed towards the need of protected area.
 Budget management is poor and constraints
effectiveness, education and awareness is low for
management. There is no direct involvement of local
communities, protected system are partially effective in
resource use.
22

23. Conclusion
 Ecological studies of Harike have shown that it is eutrophic in
character. Soil, water and biotic communities exhibited degraded
conditions along Sutlej especially during winter when ingress of
water within that side was less. Beas zone although comparatively in
good condition, has also started degrading.
 There are 30 questions in the assessment form which depicts need
for better management and follow up action on threats faced by
wetlands. The total score was found to be 48
 It outlines the paucity of funds, training and community
engagement.
 Strict management plan and implementation is required for Harike
Wetland 23

24. Bibliography
 Hockings, M., 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing
management effectiveness of protected areas. IUCN
 Leverington, F., Hockings, M. and Costa, K.L., 2008. Management
effectiveness evaluation in protected areas: a global study. World
Commission on Protected Areas.
 Ervin, J., 2003. Rapid assessment of protected area management
effectiveness in four countries. BioScience, 53(9), pp.833-841.
 Management effectiveness tracking tool by WWF; Reporting progress at
protected area sites: second edition 2007
 Moza, U. and Mishra, D.N., Current Status of Harike Wetland Visa Visa its
Ecology and Fishery. In Proceedings of Taal2007: The 12th World Lake
Conference (Vol. 1470, p. 1476).
 Tiwana, N.S., Neelima, J., Saxena, S.K. and Sharma, V., 2008. Conservation
of Ramsar sites in Punjab. In Proceedings of Taal2007: The 12th World
Lake Conference (Vol. 1463, p. 1469).
24

25. THANKYOU !
25