Keoladeo National Park

• Decline in the population of Siberian cranes (issue resolved)
• Inadequate water supply and competition for water with neighbouring communities;
• Poor water (quality and quantity) management;
• Invasive species (Prosopis, Eichhornia, Paspalum)(already an issue in the past)  

Total amount provided to the property: USD 80,000 (Enhancing Our Heritage project on management effectiveness assessment). The property has benefited from the United Nations Foundation funded World Heritage India programme from 2008 (enhance management effectiveness and build staff capacity; increase the involvement of local communities in the management of the property and promote their sustainable development; and raise awareness through communications and advocacy).

On 11 February 2014, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, a summary of which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/340/documents. The State Party reports the following:

• The Govardhan Drain has been completed on 29 September 2012 and according to the report 210 million cubic feet (mcft) of water have reached the park in 2013. This appears to be lower than the 350 mcft of water that was anticipated to be provided by this project every year. While the State Party report includes photos of other water supply projects, it does not provide information on the volume of their contributions. Hence it is not clear how much water has been provided in total in 2013 and how much water can be provided on a regular basis;
• Water quality measurements have been undertaken and conclude that heavy metal levels are within the permissible limits and that no pesticide residues were identified;
• Water availability, size of wetlands and number of bird species and populations have been recorded for wetlands in a radius of 100km of the property. However, the report does not provide any analysis of this data;
• Ecological monitoring surveys have taken place in recent years and the State Party provides bird counts for the property’s heronry (including 15 heron and stork species) and other waterfowl. However, the data provided is contradictory and does not allow a conclusive assessment. The figures for the heronry reflect a rise in bird counts in 2012 and 2013 compared to a sharp decline recorded in 2008. On the other hand, the figures for waterfowl, including for some of the same heron and stork species, while also indicating considerable growth in 2011/2012, record higher numbers in 2008 and a drastic decline in 2009/2010. These contradictory findings are not explained and thus make it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions regarding the recovery of bird populations;
• Ecodevelopment Committees (EDCs) have been set up in 16 villages adjacent to the property to include the local population in the protection and preservation of the property. These EDCs are also involved in a monitoring and eradication programme to manage the spread of invasive species, in particular Water Hyacinth and Prosopis juliflora.

No information has been provided on development in the immediate vicinity of the property, as requested by the Committee in Decision 36 COM 7B.11.

The completion of the Govardhan Drain is noted as a positive development. Water supply to the property seems to have improved as a result. However, no detailed information is provided on other water supply projects such as the Dholpur – Bharatpur Drinking Water Project, which at the 36th session of the Committee was reported to be providing a significant amount of water to the property. This project was scheduled to reduce its water contribution to the property after 2014, therefore it will be crucial to ensure that the property continues to receive a sufficient amount of water flows. More information is also required on water being released from the Panchana Dam. The lack of time series data on the total water flow into the property makes it challenging to draw conclusions about the adequacy of water flows, in line with the minimum of 550 mcft of water per annum required to sustain the property’s wetland values, as recommended by the 2008 joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN mission. Therefore the World Heritage Centre and IUCN recommend that the Committee request the State Party to provide clear time series data of water flows, including project-specific data, in order to demonstrate that the required minimum of 550 mcft per annum is being achieved.

While the data provided indicate growth in bird populations, the two different data sets for the property’s heronry and waterfowl are largely contradictory and do not permit a clear assessment of the status of bird populations in the property. It is therefore recommended that the Committee request the State Party to provide more precise data, including data analyses and detailed information on methods used, in order to demonstrate the clear and sustained recovery of bird populations.

The reported implementation of ecological monitoring programmes for satellite wetlands around the property should also be noted. Given the importance of these satellite wetlands for maintaining the values of the property, particularly in times of drought, it is recommended that the Committee encourage the State Party to continue to monitor and manage these sites.

The participation of local villagers in the management of the property and its surroundings, including the management of invasive species, is appreciated. Noting that Water Hyacinth and Prosopis juliflora will react differently to increasing water levels in the property, more information on the dispersal of these species is necessary to assess whether current efforts are sufficient to control their spread successfully under changing conditions of water supply. It is also recommended that the Committee encourage the State Party to develop an adaptive invasive species control and eradication strategy as part of an updated management plan, noting that the current management plan ends in 2014.

It is finally recommended that the Committee reiterate its request to the State Party to provide information on development in the immediate vicinity of the property, and what regulations are in place to avoid negative impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.