Bhutan Management Effectiveness Assessment

of Four Protected Areas using WWF’s RAPPAM MethodologyB

huta

n

Tshering, K.2003Bhutan: Management Effectiveness Assessment of Four Protected Areas using WWF’s RAPPAM MethodologyWWFGland, Switzerland

Front cover photograph: temperate forest, Wangdi Province, Bhutan© WWF/Soh Koon Chng

Jigme Dorji National Park

Jigme Singye Wangchuk National Park

BHUTAN

Management Effectiveness Assessment of Four Protected Areas using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology

K. Tshering

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3

IMPLEMENTING THE METHODOLOGY 5

FINDINGS AND ANALYSES 6

RECOMMENDATIONS 22

FOLLOW-UP ACTION 25

REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 26

CONTENTS

WW

FB

HU

TAN

CA

SE

STU

DY

2

B hutan, a country little known to the outsideworld, is situated in the eastern Himalayas,sandwiched between India and China. The

country has an area of 40,076 square kilometresand a population of 698,950. While most countrieshave indiscriminately exploited their naturalresources, Bhutan emerges as a model forconservation. The country has extensive forests –more than 72 per cent of the land is covered indifferent forest types, most of which are largelyintact. These forest areas range in altitude from150 metres in the south to over 7,500 metres inthe north. A vast diversity of flora and fauna isfound within these forests, which falls within aregion considered by many conservationists to bea “global biodiversity hotspot”. It is estimated thatthere are more than 5,500 vascular plant species,

165 mammals, and 770 bird species, with a highdegree of endemism found throughout.

The Royal Government of Bhutan places greatemphasis on conserving the country’s biologicalresources. Around 26 per cent of the country hasbeen set aside under the protected areas (PA) system. Recently, an additional 9 per cent hasbeen designated as biological corridors, to allowunrestricted movement of various species betweenthe protected areas, thus assuring their viability.

The protected areas system in Bhutan was revisedin 1993 to ensure representation of the differentecosystems of the country; it currently comprisesfour national parks, four wildlife sanctuaries, andone strict nature reserve.

INTRODUCTIONANDBACKGROUND

3

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N A

ND

BA

CK

GR

OU

ND

Protected Areas and Biological Corridors

0 100km

Bhutan is a developing country, with more than 79per cent of the population dependent onsubsistence farming. Alongside its commitment tonature conservation, the government must alsoenhance socio-economic development. Concernedthat development activities could take undueprecedence over conservation in the future, thegovernment has pledged to maintain a minimumforest cover of 60 per cent. Governmentdevelopment policies are constructed with theprinciple of integrating conservation anddevelopment: while the country pursues economicdevelopment, it will continue to ensure thatconservation issues are adequately addressed.

Though balancing conservation and developmentcan be a difficult task, Bhutan has accepted thechallenge and is following a “middle path”, aimedat achieving sustainable development. Thischallenge is especially pressing and evident in theprotected area system where local people live in allof the protected areas. Their presence is viewed asan integral part of ecosystem management in theselocations.

The Nature Conservation Division (NCD), under theDepartment of Forestry Services, is responsible formanaging protected areas. Currently, five protectedareas have operational budgets, staff, andmanagement plans. These are Royal Manas

National Park (RMNP), Jigme Dorji National Park(JDNP), Jigme Singye Wangchuk National Park(JSWNP), Thrumshingla National Park (TNP), andBumdeling Wildlife Sanctuary (BWS). Four smallerareas are expected to become operational in thecoming years.

The management of Bhutan’s protected areas isstill at an early stage, enabling experience andgood practice to inform the approach that isdeveloped and adopted to meet the conservationneeds of the country. The presence of localresidents within protected areas makes theconservation task complex and challenging,requiring the NCD to take prudent steps inaddressing conservation issues. Even though it hasonly recently embarked on protected areamanagement, the NCD recognizes the need toassess park management practices in order tomake pragmatic decisions regarding futuremanagement. As an initial step, the NCD decidedto conduct a self-assessment of the operationalprotected areas of the country in order to:

� review the overall progress of the protectedareas, to identify strengths, weaknesses,opportunities, and threats

� help identify any technical support needed

� inform strategic biodiversity planning processesfor the NCD.

WW

FB

HU

TAN

CA

SE

STU

DY

4

T he self-evaluation exercise to assess themanagement effectiveness of the protectedarea system was conducted for four of the

five operational protected areas: JDNP, JSWNP,BWS, and TNP. The RMNP was excluded becauseof political tensions along the Indian border. A mapof each of the protected areas included in theassessment can be found on the inside front andback cover of this publication.

The assessment was conducted in two phases.The first phase consisted of a series of three, in-depth participatory workshops held at protectedarea (PA) sites, during the second half of 2001.Each workshop lasted a day and a half, andincluded presentations, small group discussions,and plenary sessions. This phase, which usedquestions based on the WCPA Framework forAssessing Management Effectiveness (Hockings et

al. 2000), provided a snapshot of the strengths,weaknesses, opportunities, and threats facing eachprotected area, and gave a broad overview of keyissues. The second, supplementary, phaseconsisted of a series of focused interviews withpark managers, staff, and stakeholders in April2002. It was conducted with technical assistancefrom Jamison Ervin, a consultant fielded throughthe WWF/World Bank Alliance. This phase usedthe WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritization ofProtected Area Management (RAPPAM)methodology, and provided a more detailedunderstanding of the issues raised in the first phaseof the assessment. In-depth interviews with parkmanagers provided detailed, qualitative notes oneach of the questions in the Rapid AssessmentQuestionnaire (part of the RAPPAM Methodology).A final report combined the findings of bothphases.

IMPLEMENTINGTHE METHODOLOGY

5

IMP

LEM

EN

TIN

G T

HE

ME

THO

DO

LOG

Y

Road at high elevationPhoto: © WWF/J.Ervin

T he main findings of the assessment arepresented here, including managementeffectiveness, the threats and pressures

faced, and the opportunities and weaknessesidentified.

This section covers the findings of questions 6–16of the Rapid Assessment Questionnaire. It looks at

the planning, inputs, processes and outputs/outcomes of the protected areas. Below is a graphillustrating the overall management effectiveness ofeach of the four parks included in the assessment.With a few exceptions (e.g. legal status andsecurity, and communication), there is very littlevariation from park to park in managementeffectiveness.

The detailed results from each set of questionsfollow, in graph form and explanatory notes.Responses were scored as follows: “yes” = 5;“mostly yes” = 3; “mostly no” = 1; and “no” = 0.

A score of 5 does not necessarily mean that there are no problems, nor does a score of 0 implycomplete failure. Rather, the scores indicategeneral strengths and weaknesses.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSES

OBJECTIVESThis section highlights the objectives, legalstatus/security, and the site design and planning ofthe four protected areas. It indicates the level ofplanning that is in existence.

PLANNING

Management Effectiveness

15

10

5

25

20

Objectives Status/Security

SiteDesign

Staff Communication Transport ManagementPlanning

DecisionMaking

FinancialManagement

ResearchMonitoring

Average0

JD JSW TNP BWS

Objectives

3

2

1

5

4

ConserveBiodiversity

SpecificObjectives

ConsistentPolicies

EmployeesUnderstand

CommunitiesSupport

Average0

JD JSW TNP BWS

WW

FB

HU

TAN

CA

SE

STU

DY

6

a) The PA objectives provide for the protection andmaintenance of biological diversity.All four protected areas have clear objectives forprotecting and maintaining biological diversity.

b) Specific biodiversity-related objectives are clearlystated in the management plan.While each of the protected areas have broadobjectives that focus on the conservation ofbiodiversity, management plans have morespecific objectives for conserving biodiversityassets within the parks. Only a few key speciesare identified (e.g. tiger, takin, red panda, snowleopard), rather than a full range of species, andobjectives are limited to vague statements, suchas “maintain populations of key species” and “toprotect populations.”

c) Management policies and plans are consistentwith the PA objectives.Protected area managers identified this as aclear strength of the protected area system;policies and plans are generally consistent withPA objectives.

d) PA employees and administrators understandthe PA objectives and policies.Park managers and the staff quite clearlyunderstand the PA objectives.

e) Local communities support the overall objectivesof the PA.None of the park managers felt they could affirmthis unequivocally. Two mentioned the initialresentment that many communities felt when theparks were first established. All mentioned thatlocal communities often had high (andunrealistic) expectations regarding the park as asource of income, and did not clearlyunderstand why the park had been established.One park manager highlighted problems withpark zoning as a specific issue. However, parkmanagers also felt that perceptions weregradually changing, partly as a result of theenvironmental education activities conducted bythe parks in collaboration with the Royal Societyfor the Protection of Nature (RSPN). Theprevailing attitude toward local communities wasexpressed by one warden, who remarked “Wehaven’t had enough time to convince themabout why the park is here yet.”

LEGAL SECURITY

a) The PA has long term, legally binding protection.Three park managers felt that the parks werefully secure. One expressed some hesitation,noting that park boundaries were at timessubject to negotiation.

b) There are no unsettled disputes regarding landtenure or use rights.Although there were some disputes regardingtenure and land use in two parks, they wereconsidered minor. However, once the zoning iscomplete there will be certain non-negotiableprescriptions applied which may create somedisputes initially.

c) Boundary demarcation is adequate to meet thePA objectives.Park managers felt that boundary demarcation isadequate, although they all agree that thedemarcation of zones was unclear, including thecore zone and buffer zone.

The protected area design is not consideredadequate in any of the parks at the moment,particularly as zoning is not yet fully operational.There are important differences in the designamong the parks, regarding core, multiple use,and buffer zones. At one end of the spectrum,JDNP has people living throughout the park; andclearly defined boundaries for various zones isnot very relevant to management planning. Atthe other end, TNP has only a few settlementsinside the park boundaries, but a large numberof villages in the buffer zone. In the boundaryfeasibility study villages were excluded from the

Legal Status and Security

3

2

1

5

4

Long-TermStatus

Tenure Demarcation LawEnforcement

CommunityConflicts

Average0

JD JSW TNP BWS

7

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

park area wherever possible and included in thebuffer zone. BWS, on the other hand, has definedits buffer as containing no villages and has twogeogs (local district authorities) in a multiple-usezone. The core zone has been roughlydemarcated but the present use has not yet beenphased out. The JSWNP has an intermediateposition with population concentrations both inthe future buffer and multiple use zones.

d) Staff and financial resources are adequate toconduct critical law enforcement activities.All four park managers identified problems withlaw enforcement, including illegal timberharvesting, grazing, poaching, and non-timberforest products (NTFP) collection. The maincause of inadequate law enforcement was aninadequate number of field-level staff. The JDNPfaces severe problems with law enforcement,with poachers coming over the border from Tibet.Despite the overall score in law enforcement,there have been significant efforts in this area. Forexample, TNP has conducted a workshopspecifically to develop an anti-poaching strategyfor the park.

e) Conflicts with the local community are resolvedfairly and effectively.There are presently no severe problems betweenthe local communities and the park management.However, problems such as crop destruction andlivestock depredation by wildlife has the potentialto cause conflicts between the park authoritiesand local people.

SITE DESIGN AND PLANNING

a) The layout and configuration of the PA optimizesthe conservation of biodiversity.The layout and configuration of the protectedareas is one of the unqualified strengths of theentire protected area system. The areas weredesigned to optimize biodiversity conservation;two parks have recently adjusted their boundariesin order to better protect the habitat of keyspecies such as the tiger.

b) The land use in the surrounding area (buffer,corridor) enables effective PA management.All four protected areas include a buffer zone,averaging from 3 to 5 kilometres around thepark’s core zone. All are connected via biologicalcorridors to another protected area. However, thebiological corridors do not yet have managementplans, and therefore the degree of protection theyoffer is unknown. Presently, preliminary surveysare taking place in the biological corridors.Problems still exist regarding a clearly definedbuffer zone and the legal status of the biologicalcorridors.

c) The siting of the PA is consistent with the PAobjectives.Siting is another of the unqualified strengths of theprotected area system. The siting of newprotected areas was based on preliminary wildlifesurveys (particularly tiger surveys), as well asexisting land use patterns. Together, the protectedarea system captures a good cross-section of thecountry’s broad range of ecosystem types.

d) The PA zoning system is adequate to achieve theprotected area objectives.All park managers expressed concern with thecurrent zoning system. Zones were demarcatedlargely on paper and not on the ground. Zoningwas also a major source of community tension,particularly over grazing rights. One parkmanager mentioned the need for bettercommunity involvement in determining thelocation of the zones.

e) The PA is linked to another area of conserved orprotected land.Connectivity between protected areas is anotherobvious strength of the protected area system.All are connected via biological corridors, andJSWNP is directly adjacent to the RMNP. Thequestion of resolving legal status of the biologicalcorridors, however, still exists.

WW

FB

HU

TAN

CA

SE

STU

DY

PA Site Design

3

2

1

5

4

PALayout

SurroundingUse

PASiting

Zoning Linkages Average0

JD JSW TNP BWS

8

STAFF

a) The level of staffing is sufficient to effectivelymanage the area.Inadequate staffing is one of the fewweaknesses of the protected area system. All ofthe park managers identified an acute shortageof staff, particularly park guards. There wasbetween 60 and 80 per cent fewer actual staffthan the number approved. The impact of lowstaffing was widespread, with park managersciting ineffective law enforcement; poor threatdetection, mitigation, monitoring and prevention;high workloads; low staff morale; poor staffplanning; inadequate research and education;and a chronic crisis management mode at alllevels, from NCD to park guards.

The reasons given for low staffing are multiple.With a relatively low population, Bhutan faces awidespread shortage of human resources in allsectors. This shortage is compounded by thelow number of trainees being produced annuallyby the Natural Resources Training Institute(NRTI), and, more acutely, from the BhutanForestry Institute (BFI). NRTI produces only25 graduates per year; and BFI only 35. Parkmanagers are not only limited to hiring from thissmall pool, they must also compete with the

Ministry of Agriculture and other agencies forthese graduates.

Another area of concern is the high dependenceon external consultants, particularly forbiodiversity inventory skills, without the adequatetransfer of skills to local staff.

Another reason for the shortage of staff isattributed to the government’s policy of strictlylimiting the number of governmental employees.

b) Staff members have adequate skills to conductcritical management activities.While, generally, park staff members haveadequate skills, the identification, surveying, andmonitoring of biodiversity remains a critical gap.Park managers identified a range of simple butcrucial skills, such as plant and animalidentification, geographic information system(GIS) mapping, and simple surveying skills thatwould greatly improve their ability to developnatural resource inventories. One park manageralso identified community relations and conflictresolution as an area for skills improvement.

c) There is clear internal organization (e.g. jobdescriptions).All park managers felt that there was clearinternal organization, and that all staffunderstood their responsibilities.

d) Staff support (e.g. training, supervision, moni-toring) is appropriate to the needs of the staff.Although park managers felt that training was anoverall strength, there were some concernsabout the ad hoc nature of training opportunities,and reservations about whether or not trainingsessions were effective in providing key skills.

e) Staff employment conditions (e.g. salaries, benefits,working environment) are sufficient to retain staff.Park managers considered staff conditionsadequate, especially when compared with otheragencies. Employees generally view the highdegree of training opportunities as a majorbenefit, and salaries are consistent with or abovelocal norms. Despite the lack of humanresources throughout the country, jobs are veryscarce, and several employees expressed reliefin having a secure, well paid job.

INPUTS

Staff

3

2

1

5

4

Staffing Skills Organization Support Conditions Average0

JD JSW TNP BWS

BWS JSW

Needed

TNP JD

Existing

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

Actual versus Needed Staffing Requirements

9

COMMUNICATION ANDINFORMATION

a) There is effective communication between allprotected area staff and administration.Two managers felt that communication betweenstaff was adequate, particularly since they hadestablished monthly meetings with all park staff.One manager felt that communication could beimproved, especially between his office and NCDheadquarters. One manager felt thatcommunication was entirely inadequate, primarilybecause of a lack of communicationinfrastructure.

b) Means of communication between field and officestaff are adequate (e.g. radios, telephones).The lack of adequate communication means is aclear problem in all protected areas. Eventhough there may be a telephone at a localwarden’s office, this may not be enough toensure adequate communication. One wardenexplains, “My telephone is solar powered, and itdoesn’t always work. If I had more batterycapacity, I could have telephone access fulltime.” Another warden adds, “Communication isokay with park headquarters, and we commun-icate frequently, but it is almost impossible toreach guards in the field. I just don’t have theequipment I need.” One result of inadequatecommunication is that wardens and guards areoften unable to catch poachers. Explains onewarden, “Last year, I suspected that there werepoachers in one area of the park, but I wasunable to call for back up support. It isdangerous for one or two unarmed guards to tryand go in and catch a gang of armed poachers.”

Park staff identified the following specificcommunication requirements: high-poweredwireless radios, handsets, walkie-talkies, andbetter solar capacity for telephones.

c) There are adequate data processing systems(e.g. computers, software, filing systems).On average, park managers felt that dataprocessing systems were adequate, given theamount of data they were handling, and theirinformation needs, although several mentionedthat their wardens did not have the equipmentthey needed. Three of the park managers hadsophisticated computers, fax machines, printers,e-mail and web access, and other equipment.One (TNP) was noticeably weaker (the officecomputer was in storage until electricity wasmore reliable and accessible in the region). Onepark manager specifically identified the need forGIS software, in order to better track existingdata and to create meaningful maps of the park.

d) PA data are available and relatively recent (e.g.satellite imagery, aerial photos, field studies).Lack of data is another major systemicshortcoming for all protected areas. Lack ofdetailed maps (i.e.1:50,000), and/or satelliteimages, meant that guards were often unawareof the exact locations for specified managementactivities, and spent considerable time trying tolocate sites on the ground. Remarked onewarden, “We just go out there, following thispath or that path, and hope it leads to where weare supposed to go.” More fundamentally,managers lack detailed data about the bio-diversity within their parks. While some data didexist (primarily community-based data in theform of oral reports of wildlife sightings and tigersurvey data), the parks lacked detailed dataabout the actual presence or absence of speciesand populations; the extent and quality of criticalhabitat; the location of rare, threatened orendangered plant species; and species inter-actions. Moreover, any existing data tended tofocus almost exclusively on the handful ofcharismatic megafauna (tiger, takin, red panda,and black-necked crane). While the national listof critically rare species includes several dozenspecies, data about these species are almostcompletely absent.

Communication and Information

3

2

1

5

4

EffectiveCommunication

Means of

Communication

DataProcessing

PAData

Communicationwith Local

Communities

Average0

JD JSW TNP BWS

WW

FB

HU

TAN

CA

SE

STU

DY

10

e) There is effective communication with localcommunities regarding protected areamanagement.Park managers saw communication with localcommunities as one of their strengths. In theprocess of developing Integrated Conservationand Development Programme (ICDP) plans,each park had held extensive participatorymeetings and workshops with local communitymembers.

TRANSPORT AND FACILITIES

a) Transportation infrastructure is adequate toperform critical management activities.On average, park managers felt thattransportation means were adequate, given thatthe vast majority of patrolling had to be done onfoot because of the rugged terrain. Vehicles wereadequate for transportation between the capitaland the parks.

b) Equipment for field-level data collection isadequate (e.g. field gear, GPS monitors).Several park managers and staff mentioned theneed for global positioning system (GPS)monitors, as well as GIS software to analysedata. They also felt that while their headquartersmay be fairly well equipped, their warden postswere not, and even less so for the park guards.Remarked one warden, “What I’d really like is afield guide for identifying birds. I’ve begun myown study on the relation between birds andconifer species, but I’m not really sure of myability to identify birds.”

c) Staff facilities are adequate (e.g. staff offices,research stations, field offices) to perform criticalmanagement activities.Facilities varied from park to park, with theoldest park, JDNP, having relatively betterfacilities. However, most of the parks are in theprocess of completing building developmentssuch as a park office complex, visitor centres,and warden and guard posts. So, in due course,the facilities of the parks will improve.

d) Maintenance and care of equipment is adequateto ensure long-term use.Maintenance of equipment is a clear strength ofthe protected area system. Managers receive aregular budget for maintenance costs, and mostfeel this budget is sufficient to ensure long-termuse, especially of vehicles.

e) Visitor facilities (e.g. trails, signs, camping areas,visitor centres) are appropriate to the level ofvisitor use.All four park managers qualified their generallypositive responses by stating that the visitorfacilities were adequate but only for existinglevels of use. In one case, there were no visitorfacilities, but there were, however, very fewvisitors. Given the strong likelihood of tourismincreasing in the future, this may be an area forfuture assessment.

Transportation and Facilities

3

2

1

5

4

TransportMeans

FieldEquipment

StaffFacilities

Maintenance VisitorFacilities

Average0

JD JSW TNP BWS

11

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

Photo: © WWF/J.ErvinErosion from road construction

The next part of the section of the questionnairefocuses on understanding the managementprocesses at work within the protected areas. Theprocesses include management planning practices,decision making, financial management, andresearch, monitoring and evaluation.

MANAGEMENT PLANNING

a) There is a comprehensive, relatively recentwritten management plan.All four protected areas had comprehensivemanagement plans. Two were very recent(2002–2007), one was in the process of beingupdated (1997–2001), and one had an 18-month pilot management plan. Park managersfelt the management plans were comprehensive(all had external support in creating themanagement plans, from WWF, UNDP, andDANIDA). However, two park managers notedthat in their view, the management plans werevery vague, and did not pay adequate attentionto the biodiversity resources within their parks.

The protected areas are in different situationswith regard to planning. JDNP, the secondnational park to be established after RMNP, hasa ‘first generation’ management plan. The plan isbased on surveys, with considerable consultantinput, and is unrealistically ambitious in its scope.BWS and TNP have recently completed theirmanagement plans, which have been preparedthrough a consultative process involving parkstaff, geogs and districts, and NCDheadquarters. They are based on more thorough

biodiversity and socio-economic surveys,produced with consultant input. JSWNP has apilot management plan, which has been whollyprepared by the Bhutanese staff. It outlines aprogramme of surveys and consultationsnecessary to produce a full management planwhich will be prepared to coincide with the ninthfive-year plan of the country. As there have beenonly limited biodiversity surveys to date, themanagement planning process in BMNP isconsidered to be less developed than in theother protected areas. All management plans arethought adequate in expressing a vision onbiodiversity conservation in its social, economic,and institutional context.

b) There is an up-to-date resource inventory,including maps of the area.This question scored very low, with no parkmanager satisfied with the natural resourceinventory within his park. While all had animpressive list of species as an appendix to theirmanagement plans, these were based onexpected rather than actual presence orabsence of species. Even for the handful of keyspecies identified as conservation targets, therewas no information about actual populations,reproductive rates, critical habitats, resourceneeds, breeding requirements, or impact ofpoaching and other human activities. The lack ofa meaningful natural resource inventory is one ofthe fundamental and most pressing weaknessesof the entire protected area system.

c) An ICDP plan has been completed for theprotected area.All park managers saw the development andimplementation of an ICDP plan as an essentialcomponent of park management. Each hadspent considerable time and resources indeveloping their ICDP plans. Although none hadactually been implemented yet, all werescheduled to begin an implementation phasefrom July 2002.

d) There is an analysis of and strategy foraddressing, protected area threats andpressures.While some preliminary threat analysis existed(mostly on grazing), this focused on steps to

PROCESSES

Management Planning

3

2

1

5

4

ManagementPlan

Inventory ICDPPlan

ThreatAnalysis

Work Plan Average0

JD JSW TNP BWS

WW

FBH

UTA

N C

ASE

STU

DY

12

address grazing, but did not include anassessment of the impact of or distribution ofgrazing. None of the parks had a systematicanalysis of the full range of threats.

e) Annual workplans specify goals and targets toachieve management objectives.Overall, this question received a high score. Onepark manager reflected that workplans for staffwere developed on a monthly, rather than annualbasis, and that wardens did not have specificworkplans.

MANAGEMENT DECISION MAKING

a) There is clear leadership and strong teamworkamong staff.Three park managers answered an unequivocalyes; one noted that there was room forimprovement. In general, park managers,wardens, and other staff expressed a sense ofteamwork, and mentioned their closecamaraderie. This is especially true for smallteams in isolated conditions.

b) Management decision making is transparent.Park managers and staff felt that decisionmaking was transparent. One warden noted “Wemeet monthly to discuss the next month’s plans,and we make decisions together.”

c) Protected area staff regularly collaborate withpartners, local communities, and otherorganizations.Although collaboration was generally high(indeed, close collaboration with WWF, RSPN,and local communities was readily evident), park

managers identified three areas for improvement:

�better coordination with NCD headquarters

�better communication and collaboration withdistrict officers

�better coordination with other protected areaswithin the country.

d) Local communities participate in decisions thataffect them.Park managers felt that local communityparticipation was a strength, particularly inidentifying ICDP activities. One park managerexpressed some hesitation: “In the end, we stillretain decision-making authority over issues thatdirectly affect them, like compensation forlivestock depredation. And for some things it ishard to involve the communities, like directivesfrom NCD.”

e) Management planning continually incorporatesand adapts to new learning.Although most of the park system itself is quitenew (most of the parks are less than a decadeold), management planning has already beenadaptive to new learning.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) There is adequate funding to conduct all criticalmanagement activities.Overall, existing funding is adequate for theneeds of the parks. One park manager notedthat additional funding was needed forequipment and infrastructure. However, threepark managers quickly qualified their answers bynoting that their situation would change quicklyas funding cycles came to an end. It should benoted that this score does not necessarily reflect

Financial Management

3

2

1

5

4

AdequateFunding

Efficient Allocation ShortTerm

LongTerm

Average0

JD JSW TNP BWS

Management Decision-Making Practices

3

2

1

5

4

Leadership TransparentDecisionMaking

Collaboration CommunityInvolvement

AdaptiveManagement

Average0

JD JSW TNP BWS

13

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

staff capacity to spend funding. In many cases,park managers returned funds at the end of thefiscal year or requested that they be allowed tocarry over funding into the next fiscal year,because they had been unable to spend theirallocated budgets.

b) Financial management practices enable efficientand effective protected area management.Of all the assessment indicators, this onegenerated the most discussion; the topic cameup in nearly every conversation regarding parkmanagement. “We definitely have a problem,”remarked one park manager.” “We have majordelays in getting paid, up to six months ormore,” commented another. In one case, a parkmanager described having to drive two days(one way) to Thimphu in order to be sure hisrequest for funding was expedited. Suchinefficiencies marked the financial managementof parks, although many of the factors leading tothis inefficiency were beyond the control ofprotected area managers themselves.

There are several conditions that exacerbate thefinancial management problems:

�Funders have strict guidelines regardingreporting and release of finances, and are oftenviewed as inflexible and dogmatic by parkmanagers.

�Field projects often experience delays due tofactors outside of the park managers’ control.

�These delays mean that financial reporting isalso delayed, further aggravating the problem.

�Many district offices view the park as a source ofincome, and pressure park managers to spendmoney on unbudgeted activities.

�Only one park has an accountant; the othershave centralized and inefficient accountingprocedures.

�The path of funds from donors to parkmanagers, and the path of information from parkmanagers to donors, is lengthy and circuitous,involving as many as six or seven differentstages, ministries, and organizations.

�Some park managers, although they recognizethe importance of reporting and financialmanagement, are too busy facing urgent crisesbecause of staff shortages, to pay due attentionto financial issues.

Inefficient financial management has taken aheavy toll on park management – low moraleregarding funding, lengthy and frequent delays,projects half finished, and frustrated donors arejust some of the outcomes. This indicator issecond only to staff shortages in causingineffective park management.

c) The allocation of expenses is appropriate toprotected area priorities and objectives.Allocation of expenses scored much higher thanefficiency of financial management. However,one park manager noted that donor prioritiesheavily influenced financial and managementpriorities. Another noted that there were budgetconstraints because of unrealistic expectationsof multiple stakeholders.

d) Short-term (1–5 years) funding of the protectedarea is secure.Short-term funding in the future is uncertain, asmost of the protected areas are approaching theend of their funding period. Only one parkmanager felt that his park had relatively securefunding for the next several years (TNP is directlysupported with a five-year grant from WWF).Although short-term funding is not secure it wasgenerally felt by park managers that once projectproposals are fully developed fundingopportunities would be forthcoming.

e) There is a plan for long-term financial sustainability.While funding for the short term needs to beexplored, all park managers are confident thatthe Bhutan Trust Fund will be able to largely takecare of the long-term financial sustainability. It isimportant that the NCD also explores othersources of funding, allowing the trust fund tobuild up reserves.

WW

FB

HU

TAN

CA

SE

STU

DY

14

Photo: © WWF/J.Ervin

Village adjacent to JSW National Park

RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION

a) The impact of legal and illegal uses of theprotected area are accurately monitored andrecorded.The impacts of uses of the protected area aregenerally not monitored. Several park managersnoted that they thought it would be very usefulto have a consistent format for monitoring, andfelt that this was a service that NCD couldprovide. One park manager lamented “We don’thave nearly enough staff, we don’t have adetailed map of the park, no one knows how todo GIS analyses, and we simply don’t have theskills needed to do this kind of monitoring.”

b) Research on key ecological issues is consistentwith the needs of the protected area.Although there have been some small-scaleresearch projects (e.g. on black-necked cranesin BWS and on snow leopard, tiger andCordyceps in JD), there is no systematicresearch programme or protocol. Researchneeds are not identified, and key ecologicalresearch skills are lacking.

c) Research on key social issues is consistent withthe needs of the protected area.Social research fared much better thanecological research. As part of the ICDPdevelopment process, a socio-economic surveywas conducted in all but one protected area.Park managers felt these surveys were adequatefor their needs. However, two managersidentified the lack of research on NTFPs as amajor gap, especially given the extent to which

medicinal plants are harvested, and to thepressure which NTFPs are likely to be under inthe future.

d) Staff performance and progress on targets areperiodically reviewed.Although this indicator scored fairly well, three parkmanagers noted that they were referring to annual“civil servant assessments,” which they felt wereinadequate to their needs. Two park managers feltNCD should provide a common approach to staffmonitoring. One remarked that monitoring onprogress takes place monthly. Another added thathis staff was too overloaded to take onresponsibilities for monitoring other staff.

e) The results of research and monitoring areroutinely incorporated into managementplanning.Park managers routinely attempt to integratenew information into planning. However, they arelimited by the quality and availability of data,particularly relating to biodiversity issues.

Research, Monitoringand Evaluation

3

2

1

5

4

ImpactsRecorded

EcologicalResearch

SocialResearch

StaffReview

ResultsIncorporated

Average0

JD JSW TNP BWS

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

15

Park warden

Photo: © WWF/J.Ervin

This section looks at the accomplishments fromplanned and unplanned activities.

The graph summarizes the management outputs ofthe previous year, as viewed by park managers.While these data are based on a simple self-assessment by park managers, they do reflect thebroader trends from the management assessment.Specifically, strong outputs include communityoutreach, staff development (i.e. training),management planning, and ICDP planning. Weakeroutputs are those areas related to a paucity ofdata, including research, wildlife management,threat prevention, and restoration. Average scores,ranging from 0 to 5, are included for each output.A score of 3 or higher is considered satisfactory.

The newly established protected areas have onlypartially taken up protected area managementactivities. In JDNP there is concern that the regularconservation activities such as patrolling, research,and monitoring have been somewhat neglected asmost emphasis was put on development of theICDP. In JSWNP the situation is thought to bemore balanced, though here territorial activities areyet to begin. All parks give high importance toICDP activities, and have invested considerableeffort in identifying ICDP programmes, initiatingpilot activities, and developing a planning-implementation-evaluation cycle in cooperation withdistrict administrations. Awareness activities andenvironmental education have received relativelyless attention in the past but it is now reflected inall the park annual plans.

The parks which have recently become operational,BWS and TNP, have better achieved their plannedwork programmes, as they both have been guidedby good plans in their start-up phase(establishment of the park organization and itsbasic requirements and preparation ofmanagement plans). The TNP, in particular, has areputation of implementation according to plan. Onthe other side, JSWNP is more hampered ineffective implementation because of a complicatedproject management structure. At the level of fieldstaff, achievements are often difficult to assessbecause until recently in most parks workplanswere not communicated down to warden level.However, at present, a system appears to be inplace whereby wardens are expected to prepareand be responsible for their own workplan, basedon the park’s workplan.

OUTPUTS

Outputs

3

2

1

5

4

ThreatPrevention

Restoration WildlifeManagement

CommunityOutreach

VisitorManagement

ICDP ManagementPlanning

StaffReview

StaffDevelopment

Research0

JD JSW TNP BWS

WW

FB

HU

TAN

CA

SE

STU

DY

16

Thrumshingla National Park

Photo: © WWF/J.Ervin

During the first phase of the assessment eachprotected area generated a list of pressures andthreats each park faced, giving a score and a trendto each. The assessment using the WWF RAPPAMMethodology focused more on determining thedegree and magnitude of each threat and pressure.

The major threats and pressures facing the fourprotected areas are poaching, grazing, roadconstruction, and collection of NTFPs.Minor/moderate threats include timber felling,fishing, tseri/pangshing cultivation (slash-and-burnagriculture), firewood collection, and forest fires.

Note: an individual threat or a pressure may have ascore ranging from 1 to 64. The score is derived bymultiplying three scores (extent, impact, andpermanence), and therefore is not a linear scale.A score of 1–3 can be considered mild, 4–9 moderate, 12–24 high, and 27–64 severe.

POACHING AND KILLINGThe high commercial value of certain speciesattracts poachers, and poaching is a direct threatto several species in the protected areas. Besidespoaching for commerce, human/wildlife conflictsalso exist because of the damage wildlife causes toagricultural crops and livestock. This often results inretaliatory killing of some wildlife species.

Prominent species poached for commercial tradeinclude musk deer, tiger, black bear, and Cordycepssinensis (known as the Chinese caterpillar).Pheasants are killed for local consumption. Speciestrapped, poisoned, and shot in order to protectcrops from predation include wild boar, elephant,monkey, and bear, while livestock predators includetiger, leopard, and wild dog.

Poaching for commercial trade is generallyinfluenced by markets outside the country, Theactivity is conducted by outsiders (generally Indianand Tibetan nationals) as well as local residents.Poaching for consumption, especially of pheasant,is mostly conducted by road workers, many ofwhom live within or close to the forest.

The protected areas do not have adequate humanresources necessary for law enforcement, making itdifficult to have an effective anti-poaching strategy.Data regarding the degree of poaching and killingare also generally inadequate, although there aresome figures (e.g. park officials apprehended 194musk deer poachers in JDNP during a single year).However, the populations of species killed, and theimpact of poaching and killing are unknown.

PRESSURES AND THREATS

Overall Degree of Each Threat

40

30

20

10

50

Deg

ree

of

Thr

eat

Poaching Grazing0

Road Fires NTFPs Tseri FirewoodFishing Timber

JD JSW TNP BWS

Average Degree ofThreats and Pressures

18

9

27

Deg

ree

0

Cumulative Pressures and Threats

80

60

40

20

140

120

100

JD

Deg

ree

JSW TNP BWS0

Total ThreatsTotal Pressures

17

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

Poaching Grazing Road Fires NTFPs Tseri FirewoodFishing Timber

ThreatsPressures

The level of livestock killed by wildlife isconsiderable, and park managers generally feel thatlocal communities bear a heavy cost as a result,especially for many households who are almostentirely dependent on livestock herding. While thislevel of livestock depredation places a burden onlocal communities, it may also mean that somespecies, particularly those in marginal habitats or atthe extent of their distribution range, may dependon occasional livestock to supplement their diet.This is also reported in the national tigerconservation strategy (McDougal and Tshering,1998) where the natural prey base for tigers issupplemented by livestock. This could be one ofthe reasons for the presence of tigers in highaltitude areas. All four park managers also notedthe escalation of human/wildlife conflicts, particularlyrelating to crop damage by wild boar. NCD isembarking on programmes to address such issuesthrough a wild boar project and tiger project.

GRAZINGAlmost all of the local residents of the fourprotected areas are dependent on agriculture andlivestock for their sustenance. In many areas,agriculture is not possible due to the high altitude,and communities depend on livestock (mainly yak)for their livelihood. Grazing can have a big impacton these fragile ecosystems. Holding largenumbers of cattle and yak herds is still considereda status symbol. Traditional migratory grazing,which is prevalent in all four protected areas, isrespected by park management. There are anumber of key issues related to grazing.

Grazing has been the largest pressure in the past,and poses the most significant overall threat in thefuture for all four parks. Grazing is by yaks, cows,and sheep, herded by both semi-nomadic andresidential communities.

All of the existing ICDP plans explore options forreducing grazing. Specific measures include:

� replacing current livestock with more productivebreeds

� improving pasture management throughprescribed burning and livestock control

� promoting stall feeding and the use of fodderspecies.

Grazing has been an activity long associated witheach park, and since there is no clear under-standing about the degree of impact, all four parkmanagers expressed some reservation aboutcategorizing grazing as a threat. Yet they alsorecognized that there were negative impacts fromgrazing. “I know when it is really bad when I see it,”remarked one park manager, “but I can’t really sayat what point it starts becoming bad.” The historicnature of grazing further compounds difficulties incollecting data on actual impacts. Remarked onepark manager, “We would collect data on grazing,but we just don’t have any baseline data for whatwe’re supposed to be measuring against.”

It is clear that the frequency, intensity, and scale ofgrazing vary within and between each park, andtherefore the degree of impact from grazing variesconsiderably. However, there is no clearmechanism of determining the actual degree ofimpact within any one area, nor are there anybaseline data from which to detect changes.

In some areas within parks, grazing had increaseddramatically because sensitive areas were beinggrazed more intensively, without adequate recoverytime. One park manager remarked, “We have yaksgrazing here in one part of the year, and then cowsin another part of the year, and sometimes they’reboth grazing at the same time. And every year itseems like it’s more and more!”

Grazing policies add to the uncertainty and anxietyabout grazing in park. Commented one park staff,“Range lands are a limited resource, and we can’tassume that everyone who wants to graze will beable to do so in the future, even though they aresupposed to be able to. Every year it’s increasing.Sometimes the government gives families someyaks which adds further pressure on the park.”

FISHINGWhile hunting is banned throughout the wholecountry, fishing is permitted, but only with alicence. Strict regulations on fishing are enforced toavoid over-exploitation of species. Population levelsof fish in the rivers, especially brown trout, arebelieved to be quite low. During the winter months,from December to February, fishing is bannedaltogether. Fishing regulations also ensure that it isnot permitted during certain auspicious Buddhist

18

WW

FB

HU

TAN

CA

SE

STU

DY

days and also within a certain distance ofmonasteries. Fishing is a minor activity, and ismainly conducted by residents within the park andbuffer zone for personal consumption.

Wardens and park managers noted that fishingwas characteristically benign, using simpleequipment rather than large nets and explosives.Little is known about the fish population and itsdiversity. Park managers felt that research,monitoring, and control of fishing was a low priority.

TIMBER FELLINGTimber is felled primarily for the construction ofhouses and roofing shingles. While families areallowed to replace timber for house constructionevery 30 years, shingling takes place every three tofive years. Because of the presence of the diseaseheart rot in some areas, such as JSWP, many treesare cut indiscriminately, and there is a high degreeof waste – one park manager estimated that twoout of every three trees cut for shingles are wasted.

Illegal timber felling is not considered a threat inany of the four protected areas, although a smalldegree of illegal harvesting has been reported atJSWNP and BWS. (Illegal timber felling isconsidered a high pressure and threat in theprotected areas and forests close to the southernborder of the country.) However, the number oftrees legally felled has increased over the years,due to increased construction activities, mostly forservice infrastructure such as schools, hospitals,monasteries, roads, and tourism facilities.

ROAD CONSTRUCTIONRoad construction, in the form of road widening,constitutes a major threat, but only to TNP. Roadconstruction is only a moderate threat to JDNP, avery minor threat to BWS, and no threat to JSWNP,although there are concerns raised for the bufferareas.

The TNP is the only protected area with a majorroad running through its core area. This road isundergoing an extensive widening process.Previously, travellers from eastern Bhutan to thewestern part and vice versa travelled via asoutherly passage through India. Because of thepolitical troubles in the state of Assam in India, thisroute is now considered too dangerous, and the

country’s only east–west highway runs directlythrough TNP. In addition to the road widening,three new bypasses are planned within somesensitive areas of the park.

Roads within the parks have both direct andindirect impacts. Direct impacts include soilerosion, stream siltation, salt runoff, and direct lossof habitat. Indirect impacts include the increasedpresence of road workers, increased traffic, andwildlife impact, and increased access andvulnerability to threats such as poaching and NTFP harvesting. The roads also require constantmaintenance, and as a result, road workers havesemi-permanent housing at intervals along theroad. In several cases, these workers were thelargest source of blood pheasant poaching.

Environmentally sensitive road construction ismandatory and is monitored by the NationalEnvironmental Commission. Silent blastingtechniques are encouraged for the roadconstruction processes within TNP and JDNP.

FIRESAll fires are caused by humans and happen duringthe dry winter months. A large-scale forest fire hasnot occurred in the any of the four protected areasin recent history. However, fires cannot be ruled outas a future threat, especially with increasing humanactivity within the parks.

Discussions with park managers highlighted thatmany park staff hold conflicting beliefs about fires.While the official policy focuses on fire suppression,many saw the potential benefits of controlled fires,including improved grazing, potential forestrestoration, and the potential for lemongrasscultivation in some ecosystems. There is noresearch or data regarding either the effects of fires,or the effects of fire suppression in any of the parks.

NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTSThe prominent NTFPs in the four protected areasinclude mushrooms, cane, bamboo, medicinalplants, and incense for domestic use, as well as forlocal and international trade. Most of the NTFPscollected are usually for personal consumption. Thepark management sees the collection of NTFPs asone means to improve the income of the localresidents.

19

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

While several threats are recognized there are alsoopportunities and strengths which can be used toreduce or mitigate these threats. ICDPs for the pro-tected areas are a major strength in addressingthreats. Environmental awareness programmes inthe local communities also are gaining momentum.There is also a high degree of commitment and

motivation on the part of the park staff. Otheropportunities include the out migration of residentsfrom the protected areas, ecotourism and bio-prospecting. However, if not properly implementedbio-prospecting and ecotourism programmes canhave adverse impacts.

OPPORTUNITIES AND STRENGTHS

Although none of the park managers saw NTFPsas anything more than a minor threat, JD isexpected to see an increase in NTFP use. TNPalso plans to see an increase, especially in thecollection of matsutake mushrooms, which have ahigh local and international demand. This lowdegree of threat, however, may be attributed to alack of park manager knowledge regarding theextent and type of use of NTFPs within their parks.In two separate parks, managers claimed thatNTFP use was very low to non-existent, while thewardens in both those parks portrayed a differentpicture. “It’s hard to say, but I was talking to oneman from the community, and he said NTFP usewas very high in this park,” said one. Another said“NTFPs are showing up in the local market, andyou have to ask, where are people getting thesefrom?” One external stakeholder commented“NTFPs are very important here. Because farmersrely on subsistence farming, cash, food, andmedicine are in short supply. The terrain is difficult,and there is a growing market for NTFPs. So ofcourse villagers depend on these. And there is avery high value on some medicinal plants,especially those at high altitudes. NTFP collectionis very much a threat!”

Several donors and policy makers remarked thatthe development of projects for the sustainablemanagement and marketing of NTFPs was a majoropportunity for sustainable development, and theyhoped to pursue such plans within their ownorganizations.

TSERI/PANGSHING CULTIVATION(SLASH-AND-BURN CULTIVATION)Tseri (burning in vegetated areas) and panshing(burning in dry land) cultivation are old agriculturepractices which are slowly being phased out. Theyappear to have been a mild to moderate pressurein the past, and are currently almost non-existentthreats in all four parks. In some areas, such asTNP, the park manager felt that there were simplyno more areas where such cultivation could takeplace. Others felt that government policies stronglydiscouraged future cultivation. In some ICDPspreviously cultivated tseri areas wererecommended for the cultivation of NTFPs andother products.

The degree to which such practices have had animpact differed from park to park. In BWS, forexample, the pressure has been more severe thanin TNP, primarily because older, larger trees hadbeen cut.

FIREWOOD COLLECTIONWood is still the primary fuel for cooking andheating in all four protected areas. Overall, firewoodcollection in the past has been a mild to moderatepressure in the parks. It is considered as only amild threat in the future, with the increase inelectricity coverage and the promotion of electriccooking and heating appliances. Residents withinthe park and buffer zone may currently collectunlimited quantities of dry fallen wood without apermit.

WW

FB

HU

TAN

CA

SE

STU

DY

20

VULNERABILITY

Average Vulnerability of All Four Protected Areas

4

3

2

1

5

Monitoring Difficulty

ExploitationPressure

Bribery Civil Unrest ConflictingPractices

ResourceValue

Accessibility Demand EconomicPressure

DifficultRecruitment

0

21

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

Effects from traditional levels of grazing

Photo: © WWF/J.Ervin

Factors taken into consideration in assessing thevulnerability of the protected areas are:

� difficulty of monitoring illegal activities inprotected areas

� low law enforcement

� bribery and corruption

� civil and political instability

� conflict between cultural practices, beliefs, andtraditional uses and protected area objectives

� high market value of protected area resources

� easy accessibility of the area for illegal activities

� strong demand for protected area resources

� protected area under threat to unduly exploitprotected area resources

� difficulties in recruiting and retaining employees.

Of these ten aspects of vulnerability the major oneswere difficulty in monitoring, the high value ofresources, high demand, and difficulty in recruitingand keeping staff. On average, the four protectedareas show a moderate degree of vulnerability.

STRENGTHENING ANTI-POACHINGAND LAW ENFORCEMENTMEASURESPoaching has been seen as one of the majorpressures and threats of the protected areas. Thepresence of several species of flora and fauna withhigh commercial value on the international markethas influenced the amount of poaching. If lawenforcement is not strengthened and strictmeasures put in place to curb poaching Bhutanmay lose valuable species of wildlife within a shortperiod of time. Hence it is important that countermeasures are enforced. For this it is recommendedthat the NCD develop more effective mechanismsfor detecting and preventing poaching activities.Specific measures include: involving local forestguards, monitoring local markets, hiring adequatenumber of field staff, strengthening transboundaryagreements with India and China, and developingeffective anti-poaching strategies. Law enforcementcan be improved primarily through an increasedpresence of field staff. It is also necessary todetermine the impact of poaching and killing ontarget species, including musk deer, black bear,cordyceps, blood and alpine pheasant, wild boar,tiger, leopard, and wild dogs. An anti-poachingstrategy, addressing all the above issues, should bedeveloped and implemented immediately.

UPDATING RESEARCH ACTIVITIESThe assessment has shown that very little researchis undertaken, leading to insufficient data for theproper scientific management of protected areas.Baseline data need to be developed so that futuresurveys and research have a reference point. Forexample, grazing is thought to be a problem. It willbe necessary to undertake research in this field tofully understand its impact. Protected areamanagers will need to develop a grazing mitigationpilot programme. It would also be useful to developsimple tools for assessing and monitoring theimpacts of grazing. Involve local communities in thereview of ICDP and zoning policies regardinggrazing in core areas and grazing mitigationprogrammes. Other areas of research could includestudying the ecological impact of long-term firesuppression in fire-dependent ecosystems (e.g.Chir Pine forests). Similarly, the ecologicalimplications of bark beetle suppression need to beinvestigated. Studies on aquatic life also need tobe undertaken.

There is vast scope to conduct research in theprotected areas. Natural resource inventories in allthe protected areas need improvement. Thespecies/research section and the inventory/datamanagement sections of the NCD will have toidentify the research needs and then prioritize them

MAJOR CONCERNS NEEDING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION

T hese recommendations are based on theproblems highlighted in the findings andanalyses of the pressures, threats and

weaknesses in management effectiveness.

While there are many areas that might beimproved, the following recommendations have

been prioritized so that action plans can be devel-oped. The recommendations are intended toinform NCD and other stakeholders about theproblems and emerging threats and provide specif-ic ideas for improving management effectiveness ofBhutan’s protected area system.

RECOMMENDATIONS

WW

FB

HU

TAN

CA

SE

STU

DY

22

to conduct effective research rather thanattempting to work on all issues at once andtherefore failing to achieve anything concrete. Thetwo sections should collaborate with the RenewalNatural Resource Research Centres (RNR-RCs) ofthe Ministry of Agriculture. Appropriate fieldequipment will need to be provided to undertakethe research.

GAINING LOCAL COMMUNITYSUPPORT THROUGH CREATINGOPPORTUNITIES AND BENEFITSThe communities living in the parks play a vital rolein the conservation of biological diversity. Withouttheir support and cooperation management effortsin the protected areas will be futile. Only when localpeople share a sense of ownership of theseresources will they begin to work towardssustainable utilization. Human/wildlife conflictsshould be reduced by working on compensationschemes and related programmes acceptable tothe local community. Park managers should workclosely with local communities to identify andimplement programmes that address conservationneeds while fulfilling the developmental aspirationsof the local communities. Ecotourism opportunitiesshould be developed as a source of income forlocal people. A strategy for addressing ecotourismspecifically in the park system should bedeveloped. Such a strategy would complement therecently published national ecotourism strategy(published in collaboration with WWF-Bhutan), butwould explore in greater depth the implications andopportunities for Bhutan’s park system. A set ofecotourism guidelines for park managers withineach park needs to be developed. Themanagement planning and the integratedconservation/development programme section ofthe NCD should coordinate and collaborate withthe parks in identifying and implementing theICDPs. Support from local people can, to someextent, reduce the workload of park staff and thushelp reduce the burden of understaffing.

ZONINGDividing protected areas into three zones – core,multiple use and buffer – and accordingmanagement prescriptions to the zones will berequired to manage the protected areasscientifically. Currently no protected areas have

actually fully demarcated their zoning system onthe ground, though the need and means to do thishave been outlined in all the management plans.Without proper zoning it will be difficult to apply theregulations and there is a risk of degrading corehabitats. Consistent zoning practices and policieswill need to be applied across the entire protectedarea system. It will be essential to develop acommon but flexible approach to park zoning,involving local communities at the earliest possiblestage.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENTPRACTICESAll the protected areas have lots of activities linedup for which timely release of funds is important.Long delays in accessing required funds have beenhighlighted as a constraint by the park managers.While there are certain financial procedures tofollow a way to alleviate financial delays should besought. All accounts should be decentralized to therespective protected areas instead of having themat the ministry. The NCD should assist the parks inavoiding delays.

AVAILABILITY OF EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIESAdditional facilities need to be provided for fieldstaff to be able to accomplish their task. Ineffectivecommunication within and between the parks is aweakness. Adequate communication means andreporting structures at all levels, including betweenNCD and park managers; among park managersthemselves; and between park managers, wardensand guards, needs to be ensured. Equipment willneed to be installed to make communication moreeffective. To conduct effective research and surveysit will be necessary to have the appropriateequipment.

STRENGTHENING THE NATURECONSERVATION DIVISIONThe main responsibility of the NCD is to providetechnical support to the protected areas. It isimportant for the NCD officials to have the requiredskills to provide this support. A good humanresource development plan should be developedand implemented that can give NCD and protectedareas staff opportunities to acquire skills andincrease their capabilities.

23

RE

CO

MM

EN

DAT

ION

S

SUSTAINABLE HARVESTING OF NTFPSThe market has created a shift in demand forNTFPs from personal consumption to a morecommercial level. Obviously this creates muchgreater pressure on wild resources. It is necessaryto understand the degree of NTFP harvestingwithin parks, and the impact on harvested species.Pilot projects on developing sustainablemanagement guidelines and marketingprogrammes for one or more high value NTFPspecies should be developed. Potential domesticpartners include the National Institute of TraditionalMedicine and the Department of Research andDevelopment Services; potential internationalpartners could include WWF-UK and the RainforestAlliance, both of whom are establishingprogrammes in the sustainable harvesting andmarketing of medicinal plants.

ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLY ROAD

CONSTRUCTIONThe feasibility of reducing the degree and impact ofnew road construction in TNP, JDNP, and BWSshould be explored. Parks should limit newconstruction and impose the use of best roadconstruction practices.

FIRE MANAGEMENTThe impact of fire on the ecosystem should bestudied. A pilot project could be developed toexplore the possible ecological and social benefitsof controlled burning (e.g. lemon grass cultivation,improved grazing).

BIO-PROSPECTINGIf carefully surveyed there is every possibility thatthe forests of Bhutan will be found to beharbouring several species of plants with hugecommercial value for international pharmaceuticalcompanies. Mechanisms should be in place tosafeguard against bio-piracy, including full legalprotection of genetic resources, particularly ofmedicinal plants and wild food relatives, as well asprotection of intellectual property rights, such astraditional knowledge of plant properties. Ensuringthat such mechanisms are in place beforeestablishing projects aimed at the managementand marketing of such resources is vital.

CONTINUAL ASSESSMENT OFPROTECTED AREASThis assessment of the protected areas to evaluatemanagement effectiveness has produced a lot ofdata for planners to use in advising protected areamanagers. It has provided a good understanding ofthe status of the protected area. The data will bevery useful for making suitable managementmodifications. The management planning sectionof the NCD should undertake such assessmentsonce every two to three years.

CONCERNS NEEDING TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE NEAR FUTURE

WW

FB

HU

TAN

CA

SE

STU

DY

24

Bag made from leopard skin

Photo: © WWF/J.Ervin

M uch valuable information has beengenerated from the assessment whichcan be used for making sound

management decisions. The information gatheredfrom the assessment has already been used fordrafting a vision and strategy document for theNature Conservation Division and the protectedareas concerned.

The Nature Conservation Division will, however,need to make a plan of action to implement therecommendations that have been suggested.

A workshop with the park managers and other staffof the protected areas should be convened todiscuss the methodology and, if necessary, makesuitable amendments for conducting futureassessments. But, more fundamentally, theprocess of implementing the recommendationsneeds to be agreed upon. How theserecommendations should be accomplished, whowill do them, and when they should be done, willbe some of the factors to consider in agreeing howto execute the recommendations effectively.

FOLLOW-UP ACTION

25

FOLL

OW

-UP

AC

TIO

N

JSW National Park

Photo: © WWF/J.Ervin

Hockings, M, Stolton, S and Dudley, N. 2000. Evaluating Effectiveness. A Framework for Assessing theManagement of Protected Areas. IUCN Cardiff University Best Practice Series. IUCN Cambridge and Gland.Ervin, J. 2002. A Rapid Assessment of the Management Effectiveness of Bhutan’s Protected Area System.RGoB. World Bank/WWF Alliance.NCD. 2001. Proceedings of the Parks First Self-Assessment Exercise.DoFS, RGoB. 2001. Conservation Management Plan. 2002/03–2006/07. Thrumshingla National Park.WWF/RGoB.DoFS, RGoB. 2001. Conservation Management Plan. 2001–2007. Bumdiling Wildlife Sanctuary. NCD. RGoB.Wangchuk, S and Tshering, K. 2002. Draft Vision and Strategy of the NCD and the Protected Areas. NCD.McDougal, C and Tshering, K. 1998. Tiger Conservation Strategy for the Kingdom of Bhutan. NCD. Ministry ofAgriculture/WWF Bhutan Programme.MoA, RGoB. 2002. Biodiversity Action Plan for Bhutan. Royal Government of Bhutan. Keen Co. Ltd, Thailand.

The following people have provided invaluable support in the development of this case study: AlexanderBelokurov, Alexei K Blagovidov, Dr Di-Qiang Li, Jamison Ervin, Dr Peter Goodman, Barry James, DevendraRana, Vyacheslav Trlyshkin, Dr Sangay Wangchuk, Dr Zhou Jianhua.

ACRONYMS

BFI Bhutan Forestry InstituteBWS Bumdeling Wildlife SanctuaryDANIDA Danish Development AssistanceGeog Local district authority (usually containing a number of villages) GIS Geographic Information SystemGPS Global Positioning SystemICDP Integrated Conservation and Development ProgrammeJDNP Jigme Dorji National ParkJSWNP Jigme Singye Wangchuk National ParkNCD Nature Conservation DivisionNRTI Natural Resources Training InstituteNTFP Non-Timber Forest ProductRAPPAM Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area ManagementRMNP Royal Manas National ParkRSPN Royal Society for the Protection of NatureTNP Thrumshingla National ParkUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeWWF World Wide Fund For Nature

REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

WW

FB

HU

TAN

CA

SE

STU

DY

26

Bumdeling Wildlife Sanctuary

Thrumshingla National Park

Protected Areas Initiative

Forests for Life

WWF International

Avenue du Mont-Blanc

1196 Gland

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 364 9009

Fax: +41 22 364 0640

www.panda.org/parkassessment/

This package is printed on Context FSC paper supplied byPaperback Ltd. Chain of custody number SGS-COC-0621.Context FSC is made from 75% de-inked fibre and 25% FSCcertified pulp from well-managed forests independently certifiedin accordance with the rules of the Forest Stewardship Council.

Bhu

tan