Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area

• Indigenous hunting, gathering and collecting (Collection of medicinal plants)
• Livestock farming / grazing of domesticated animals
• Water infrastructure (hydroelectric development downstream of the property)
• Management systems/ management plan (need to consolidate management of the Parwati Valley within the national park)
• Human resources (inadequate levels of staffing, equipment and training for patrolling in high-altitude terrain)
• Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
• Others (Rights issues with respect to local communities and indigenous peoples in the Tirthan and Sainj Wildlife Sanctuaries and in the Jiwanal Valley within the national park) (issue resolved)

On 27 November 2020, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1406/documents and reports progress in addressing Decision 43 COM 7B.8 as follows:

• The State Party reaffirms its continued commitment to expanding the property through the inclusion of the Khirganga and Pin Valley National Parks and the Rupi Bhabha and the Kanawar Wildlife Sanctuaries. The Khirganga National Park is still in the process of gaining full National Park status. The intended extension will be submitted as a significant boundary modification in line with Paragraph 165 of the Operational Guidelines, with technical support from the Category 2 Centre under the auspices of UNESCO on World Natural Heritage Management and Training for Asia and the Pacific Region at the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) and IUCN;
• The decision to not re-categorise Sainj and Tirthan Wildlife Sanctuaries as national parks to avoid relocation of three villages in Sainj Wildlife Sanctuary is reiterated;
• Various efforts to engage with, train and support the local communities, notably through women’s groups, are again presented. The Park Administration provides guidance on sustainable visitor and waste management to local tour operators as well as environmental education, awareness and training programmes for the community, school children and local nature guides;
• The State Party considers that the impacts from existing resource use on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property are minimal, as most of the harvesting of natural resources occurs in the Eco-zone buffer zone;
• A new management effectiveness evaluation (MEE) of the Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP) component was undertaken in 2018-2019, which suggested that significant improvements in management have been realised since the 2015 MEE report findings, which covered the period 2006-2014;
• The State Party reaffirms its commitment to contribute to a regional comparative study, as recommended by the Committee in Decision 38 COM 8B.7, in consultation with the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), IUCN and WII.

While the State Party’s report is responding to Decision 43 COM 7B.8, it is regrettable that very limited new information is provided, as most of the contents are a reiteration of the December 2018 report. In addition, the State Party has not indicated whether there are other current conservation issues identified that may have an impact on the property’s OUV, as per the standard reporting format.

The confirmation that the State Party remains committed to significantly enlarging the property by including additional areas is welcome. However, it is noted that little new information on the progress of the property extension is provided. The full national park status for Khirganga, required for merging the park with the property, is still pending. No status or process update is provided regarding how to include the Pin Valley National Park and the two wildlife sanctuaries in the extension. It is recommended that the Committee request the State Party to increase its efforts to entitle the necessary status and designations so that the next steps of the extension process can proceed, in line with the procedures for Significant Boundary Modifications set out in Paragraph 165 of the Operational Guidelines. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN continue to stand ready to provide advice and support to the State Party, if requested.

While acknowledging that regular meetings are held with local stakeholders to ensure their meaningful involvement in the governance and management of the property, no specific information is provided regarding the involvement of local stakeholders and rights-holders in the property extension process or in other decision making processes. Furthermore, there is no update in response to the Committee’s request to conduct an assessment of the impacts of existing resource use on the OUV of the property, in particular grazing and collection of medicinal plants. Three villages located within the property and 160 villages in the buffer zone (Eco-zone) are dependent on natural resources, although efforts to provide alternative livelihoods are noted. The current situation regarding resource use in Tirthan Wildlife Sanctuary component of the property is unclear, particularly in relation to livestock grazing. It also remains unclear how the decision not to re-categorise the wildlife sanctuary as a national park might affect the intention of phasing out grazing in this component of the property.

The positive results of the MEE for the Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP) are encouraging, particularly in relation to the mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts and the effectiveness of its protection strategy. The full MEE report available from the Governement of India’s website shows that the MEE scores for Sainj and Tirthan components are equally good. Nevertheless, there are management weakenesses that require attention as identified in the MEE, such as an absence of systematic wildlife monitoring in all three components, immense biotic pressure in Sainj and Tirthan Wildlife Sanctuaries from livestock grazing and natural resource collection, and the scope for further involvement of communities in the management activities in GHNP.

In support of Decision 38 COM 8B.7 to develop a regional comparative study, a technical assessment of the Hindu Kush Himalaya as defined by ICIMOD is forthcoming through a collaborative effort between ICIMOD, Wild Heritage, IUCN and the National Geographic Society.