Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Keoladeo National Park

India
Factors affecting the property in 2016*
  • Invasive / alien freshwater species
  • Invasive/alien terrestrial species
  • Water (extraction)
  • Water infrastructure
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • 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)  
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds until 2016

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)

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2016
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2016**

March 2005: World Heritage Centre site visit; March 2008: Joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2016

On 8 December 2016, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report. A summary of this report is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/340/documents/ and reports the following:

  • Time series data on water flows for all projects shows that in 2015, the property received 390 million cubic feet (mcft) of water, which is still less than the recommended minimum of 550 mcft;
  • Water bird surveys using standard methods identified a total of 72 species and 14,780 individuals in 2015;
  • A draft notification declaring an eco-sensitive zone, defined as an area within 500 metres from the property boundary, was issued on 13 October 2015 in order to regulate developments in the immediate vicinity of the property;
  • Over 40,000 invasive African sharptooth catfish (Clarias gariepinus) were removed from the property in an operation conducted between May and July 2015;

No progress on the development of the revised management plan is provided.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2016

It is recommended that the Committee welcome the issuance of a draft notification declaring a 500 metre strip of eco-sensitive zone around the property boundary in order to regulate developments in its immediate vicinity. This plan is understood to include restrictions on land use, infrastructure, tourism, and to regulate pollution, whilst providing for restoration of land areas and conservation of water bodies. Noting that the Zonal Master Plan needs to be prepared within a period of two years from the date of publication of the final notification in the Official Gazette, it is recommended that the Committee request the State Party to ensure that a full consultation process with all relevant stakeholders be undertaken prior to finalizing the notification, and during the development of the Zonal Master Plan.

It is noted with utmost concern that provision of water to the property remains at a level insufficient to ensure adequate water quantities, recalling the minimum of 550 million cubic feet (mcft) recommended by the 2008 joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission in order to sustain the property’s wetland value. The Govardhan Drain, which was initially anticipated to provide 350 mcft of water, appears to have only provided 290 mcft of water in 2015. It is crucial that water flow is increased, taking into consideration the quality of water, in order to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property. Noting with significant concern that there have been no water flows from Panchana Dam over the past two years, and recalling the Committee Decision 35 COM 7B.14, it is recommended that the Committee urge the State Party to ensure annual releases of water from Panchana Dam in order to augment the water supply to the property.

The data on water bird counts is appreciated but the raw data provided lacks detailed analysis to assess potential causes in fluctuations for the different species. The methodologies used are also not clarified as requested by the Committee in Decision 38 COM 7B.66. Therefore, it is recommended that the Committee reiterate its request to the State Party to provide clear and accurate data and analyses of bird counts, including detailed information on methodologies used, in order to demonstrate the sustained recovery of bird populations.

The operation undertaken to remove invasive African sharptooth catfish from selected areas of the property is appreciated, but no update is provided on the status and eradication of other invasive species previously identified, namely Water Hyacinth and Prosopis juliflora. It is considered that an ongoing monitoring process for all invasive species is required, and it is reiterated that an adaptive invasive species control and eradication strategy should be encouraged as part of the updated management plan. A copy of the revised management plan, which ends in 2016, has not yet been submitted and it is recommended that the Committee reiterate its request to the State Party to submit it to the World Heritage Centre and IUCN for review.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2016
40 COM 7B.87
Keoladeo National Park (India) (N 340)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/16/40.COM/7B,
  2. Recalling Decision 38 COM 7B.66, adopted at its 38th session (Doha, 2014),
  3. Welcomes the issuance of a draft notification declaring a 500 metre strip of eco-senstivie zone around the property boundary in order to regulate developments in the immediate vicinity of the property, and requests the State Party to ensure that a full stakeholder consultation process is held prior to finalizing the notification, and during the development of the Zonal Master Plan that is expected to follow the publication in the Official Gazette of the final notification;
  4. Notes with utmost concern that the provision of water to the property remains insufficient to guarantee adequate water flows, recalling that at least 550 million cubic feet (mcft) was recommended by the 2008 mission to sustain the property’s wetland values, and strongly urges the State Party to increase the water flow through the Govardhan Drain and to ensure annual releases of water from Panchana Dam in order to augment the water supply to the property;
  5. Reiterates its request to the State Party to provide clear and accurate data and analyses of bird counts, including detailed information on methodologies used, in order to demonstrate the sustained recovery of bird populations;
  6. Appreciates the operation undertaken to remove invasive African sharptooth catfish from selected areas of the property, and also requests the State Party to develop an adaptive invasive species control and eradication strategy, including for Water Hyacinth and Prosopis juliflora to be integrated into the revised management plan;
  7. Also reiterates its request to the State Party to submit an electronic and three printed copies of the draft revised management plan to the World Heritage Centre, for review by IUCN;
  8. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 December 2017, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 42nd session in 2018.
Draft Decision: 40 COM 7B.87

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/16/40.COM/7B,
  2. Recalling Decision 38 COM 7B.66, adopted at its 38th session (Doha, 2014),
  3. Welcomes the issuance of a draft notification declaring a 500 metre strip of eco-senstivie zone around the property boundary in order to regulate developments in the immediate vicinity of the property, and requests the State Party to ensure that a full stakeholder consultation process is held prior to finalizing the notification, and during the development of the Zonal Master Plan that is expected to follow the publication in the Official Gazette of the final notification;
  4. Notes with utmost concern that the provision of water to the property remains insufficient to guarantee adequate water flows, recalling that at least 550 million cubic feet (mcft) was recommended by the 2008 mission to sustain the property’s wetland values, and strongly urges the State Party to increase the water flow through the Govardhan Drain and to ensure annual releases of water from Panchana Dam in order to augment the water supply to the property;
  5. Reiterates its request to the State Party to provide clear and accurate data and analyses of bird counts, including detailed information on methodologies used, in order to demonstrate the sustained recovery of bird populations;
  6. Appreciates the operation undertaken to remove invasive African sharptooth catfish from selected areas of the property, and also requests the State Party to develop an adaptive invasive species control and eradication strategy, including for Water Hyacinth and Prosopis juliflora to be integrated into the revised management plan;
  7. Also reiterates its request to the State Party to submit an electronic and three printed copies of the draft revised management plan to the World Heritage Centre, for review by IUCN;
  8. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 December 2017, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 42nd session in 2018.
Report year: 2016
India
Date of Inscription: 1985
Category: Natural
Criteria: (x)
Documents examined by the Committee
SOC Report by the State Party
Report (2015) .pdf
arrow_circle_right 40COM (2016)
Exports

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.


top