33093
The




 July, 2002


                                                                           CONTEKTS

1. Executive      summary            ...................................................................................................                                              .3

2. Background          and     introduction            ........................................................................................                                        6

3. Threats    and      pressures         ..................................................................................................                                            8
     Overview        of threats        and pressures           ..................................................................................                                      .X
     Poaching       and killing.,         .....................................................................................                                        ., ........    IO
     Grazing     ...............................................................................................................                                                    .I2
     Fishino c .................................................................................................................                                                     14
     Timber     felling     ....................................                  ....................................................................                                I5
     Road construction             ....................................................................................................                                               16
     Fires ....................................................................................................................                                                      17
    NTFPs.,       .......................................................................                                   .......................................                  18
     Tseri,`Pangshing           cultivation.,         .......................................................................................                                         19
     Firewood       collection        ................................................................................................                                            ..2 0
     Vulnerability         to external         factors. .........................................                          ........................................                 .2 1
     Potential     future      threats:      bioprospectin,.         0 ecotourism,              climate       change.,        ......................................                 .21

4. Management           effectiveness           ...........................................................................................                                          21
    Objectives       ............................................................................................................                                                  .24
     Legal    status and security.,               .........................................................................................                                        .25
     PA design        and planning           ............................................................................................                                           .26
     Staff .....................................                   .....          ...................................................                         ..............      ..2 7
    Communication               and information              ................................................................................                                      ..3 0
    Transportation           and facilities.          ............................................                      .........................................                  .32
     Management           planning         practices.        ..................................................................................                                     .33
     Management           decision-making.                .....................................................................................                                      .34
     Financial      Management             ..........................................................................................                                            .. .35
     Research,       monitoring           and evaluation            ...... .,      ...................................................................                              .3?
    outputs.      ...........................................                         ................................................................                            ..3 9

5. External     review       .......................................................................................................                                                 31
    NCD's       role, organization              and performance                ....................................................................                                ..4 1
    Communities            and conservation               ............................................................................                                    .......   .46
    NCD      and the establishment                  ofthe       park system ................................................................                                       ..4 8

6. Impact    of External            Financing..           ..................................................................................                                      ..5 1
     Introduction       ...........................................................................................................                                                  . 1
    Assumptions.,            .......................................................................................................                                                .52
    Current     financial         situation      ........................................................................................                                           .53
     Financial      scenarios        .................................................................................................                                             .55
     Donor    influence         .....................................................................................................                                               .65
     Looking      toward        the future .........................................................................................                                                .66
     Key    indicators       for future         monitoring          .............................................................................                                    .67


6. Recommendations                ....................................................................................................                                               68
    Threat    detection,         mitigation          and prevention             ....................................................................                               ..6 8
     Management            weaknesses           ...........................................................................................                                          .70
    Additional        recommendations                  for NCD.,          ..........................................................................                               .72

7. Appendices       .............................................................................................................                                                    74
    A: List of acronyms                used., ........................................................................................                                             ..7 4
     B: List of stakeholders               consulted         .................................................................................                                    ..7 5
    C: Terms        of reference         ...............................................................................................                                            .76
     D: Comparison            of NCD          questionnaire            with     WWF's          Rapid       Assessment            Questionnaire             ...................       .`I7
     E: Revised       questionnaire.,             .........................................................................................                                         .8 1
     F: Summary          of BTF         Grants .........................................................................................                                             89




                                                                                                                                                                                       2


 1. EXECUTIVE           SUMMARY

Background

l   This report presents the findings            of an assessment of Bhutan's           protected         area management
    effectiveness,    conducted         in April, 13002.   It is intended to be a supplement                to, and not a
    replacement     of, an initial assessment conducted             by the Nature Conservation                 Division      of
    Bhutan (NCD)

0   This assessment only covers four protected areas: Thrumsingla                         National        Park (TNP), Jigme
    Singye Wangchuck            National      Park (JSW), Jigme Dorji National             Park (JDNP) and Bomdeling
    Wildlife  Sanctuary (BWS).              Four additional    parks are not fully operationalized,                 and one park,
    Royal Manas National             Park, is under severe political     pressure.


Q   The assessment was based on WWF's                   Rapid Assessment       and Prioritization             Methodology.

 Threats and Pressures
.   Major threats include grazing and road construction.                 Moderate         threats include poaching                and
    collection  of non-timber           forest products (NTFPs).       Minor   threats include fishing,                timber
    felling, anthropogenic          fires: slash and burn agriculture     and firewood             collection.

.   Grazing   is widespread;          it is characterized   as a threat in all four protected             areas. Road
    construction,    however,         is limited to a single protected    area (TNP).

0   There is widespread         dispute among all stakeholders          regarding       the extent to which grazing
    constitutes   a threat.

m   There is little. if any, systematic          analysis of the extent and impact of threats within                      the
    protected  area system.

*   Future threats may include global climate change, bioprospectingibiopiracy,                                 and ecotourism.

.   The difficulties     in monitoring        protected   areas, a rising demand for and increased value of
    certain species, and staff shortages heighten the vulnerability                   of the park system.



                    Overall    Threats                                        Average        Degree     of Threat   and   Pressure

                                                                                                                              -,
                                                       D BWS

                                                      OTNP
                                                         JSW

                                                         JD                                    a-

                                                                              ,c9                        yQ.$
                                                                                                           o?  9"        ,&
                                                                           @Q     -b-,c9 .c,cs<xp
                                                                                      ((9        6' Qpt?          <,a' **
                            Threats                                       QO                        Threats        6

 Miuzagernct~t   .Effectiverzess
 *   Specific management       weaknesses across all protected        areas include:   1) lack of specific
     biodiversity   objectives  in management       plans; 2) ineffective   law enforcement;     3) inadequate
     and/or lack of park zoning;      4) inadequate   staffing,  especially   at guard levels; 5) inadequate
     park data; 6) inadequate    means of communication          between    field and office  staff; 7)
     inadequate   natural resource inventories;      8) lack of systematic     threat analyses; 9) lack of short-
     term funding;    IO) lack of strategy for long-term       funding;   I 1) poor monitoring    of park uses;
     and 12) inadequate     ecological   research.

 .   Management      outputs are directly related to these weaknesses.



                                       Ma~a~~~ent           Effectiveness



                                                                                                          OJD
                                                                                                             JSW
                                                                                                             TNP
                                                                                                          Cl BWS




NCD Pe~fortnnnce
.   NCD faces numerous        challenges,    including   an uncertain    mandate;   lack of focus on core
    competencies;     absence of key stafc and conflicting        expectations    about protected   areas.

hpct    of.Externnl     Finmcing

l   A reduction    in funding   (of 20 - 40%) would       likely have:
         -   Exacerbated     the impact of existing pressures and threats, including          poaching,   grazing
             and NTFP harvesting
         -   Exacerbated     management       weaknesses,    including   financial  management,
             communication,      and legal security
         -   Eroded management          strengths,  including   staffing,  and management     decision-making
             practices
         -   Limited     NCD's   ability to provide strategic leadership       in the past, and to develop
             effective    mechanisms     for park improvement       in the future
         -   Prevented the operatitionalizing        of one or even two parks
*   A modest     increase in funding    would   likelq have:
         -   Reduced the overall impact of past pressures and future threats
         -   Mitigated     some management        weaknesses, including      financial management
         -   Enabled NCD to have been more prepared to take the park system to a deeper level
             of data collection,   inventory    and sustainable     management
         -   Operationalized     at least one additional     park




                                                                                                                4

   Key indicators   for future monitoring
      -    Reduced human/\vildlife        conflicts,  and effective   mechanisms      for compensation      for
           livestock predation     in place
      -    Development       of systems for detecting,     monitoring,   preventing     and mitigating    a
           variety of threats
      -    Improved     performance     in all data-related   indicators,  including    full natural resource
           inventories
      -    Improved     financial  management       systems
      -    Effective   communication       systems across all park and NCD          levels
      -    Development       of a strategic,  streamlined   training  program
      -    Adoption     of innovative   models for service delivery
      -    Improved     organizational structures and processes within NCD itself

Recommendations
*  Key recommendations       include:
      1)   develop    a range of threat detection     and assessment tools aimed at grazing,          poaching,
           and NTFP collection;
      2)   prioritize  support to threat prevention      and abatement     activities  within   integrated
           conservation    development      programs;
      3)   develop    more specific management         objectives   for all parks, and link these to their
           biodiversity    assets;
      4)   improve    law enforcement      through   an increased park presence at field levels:
      5)   clarify zoning and grazing policies and procedures            system wide;
      6)   cancel plans to build bypass roads through          core areas at TNP
      7)   improve    communication       means and structures at all levels within         the park;
      8)   improve    park manager accessibility       to data, maps, and equipment;
      9)  develop     natural resource inventories      for all operational  parks;
      IO) improve     financial  management       practices and donor relations;
      1I ) undertake    internal organizational     analysis of NCD,     including    the identification   of
          core competencies       and assessment of internal structures and processes;
      12) add additional     staff positions   based on organizational      analysis, (possibly     including  an
          assistant to NCD director,        and assistant park managers)
      13) consider adopting      a community-based        model for delivery     of some services,
           particularly   for wildlife  monitoring    and threat prevention.

 2. BACKGROUND                  AND INTRODIJCTION

 This report is the result of a collaboration           between the Lt'orld Bank, The Nature Conservation
 Division      (NCD)    of Bhutan, and WWF Bhutan.             The aim of this assessment, which took place
 during April,      2002, was to gauge the overall management               effectiveness   of Bhutan's    four
 operational      protected   areas; and to identify      the strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities
 that may hinder or support improved              protected   areas management.

 The data collection       process began with an initial assessment of protected             area management
 effectiveness      conducted     by NCD during the end of 2001 and early 2002.               This first phase of the
 assessment provided         a wealth of background         data, identified   key issues for further    exploration,
and helped to triangulate         and verify the findings       of the second phase of the assessment.

The second phase of the assessment, which provides the basis of this report, should be seen as a
supplement        to the first phase, and not as a replacement.           The second phase began with a
comparative        analysis of NCD's       methodology      and WWF's       Rapid Assessment       and Prioritization
 Methodology        (Appendix     D).    More information      about WWF's       methodology      is available  online at
:t 1".\i .i?,i~l& erg ~?,lrh~i-\i'~\il~~,~l~.Based on this comparative      analysis and on discussions with NCD
staff, the consultant       developed     a revised questionnaire      (Appendix     E). This questionnaire     included
room for both quantitative            and qualitative    data. In addition,   the consultant    took detailed
qualitative      notes in the course of collecting        quantitative   data from the questionnaire.

The World        Bank consultant       (Jamison    Ervin) and the Head of Management            Planning   and ICDP
Section of the Xature Conservation              Division   (Karma     Tshering)   spent five days visiting    and
interviewing       park managers and staff.          The consultant    also spent two additional     days in Thimphu
interviewing       external   stakeholders      and NCD staff (see Appendix         B). Interviews    were primarily
in English. although        in a few cases were conducted           in Nepali,  as well as in Dzongka      via a
translator.     A workshop      to share and discuss preliminary         findings   followed   the data collection;
participants      included   NCD staff, park managers and stakeholders.               The findings   (Sections 3 - 6j
reflect the data as reported          by interviewees     and stakeholders;    the recommendations        (Section 7)
reflect the author's      views of priority      actions needed to strategically       improve    PA management
system wide.

This assessment is meant to provide a broad overview                   of the protected    area system w-ithin Bhutan,
not a detailed      site assessment of any one park.          In addition,   certain caveats apply to this report.
First, the use and distribution         of the results of this assessment were not made explicit            to
respondents,       with the possible result that data were withheld           or misreported.     Second, the data
were collected       in individual     interviews,    rather than through    a participatory   workshop,     so
interpretations      of individual     questions    may vary.    Third, the primary     data collection   process was
very brief, relying on an external,            short-term   consultant,   with all of the potential   shortcomings
inherent      in such consultancies.

This report emphasizes          the weaknesses and threats to Bhutan's            protected  area system - it does not
adequately       highlight  the many strengths and extraordinary            opportunities    within  the park system.
Most notably,       Bhutan's     park system. even in its current stage of operation,           represents a truly
outstanding       model of park design, species viability,          ecological   integrity,  connectivity,
representativeness,       and total land coverage, setting a standard that will challenge             the most
comprehensive         of protected area systems worldwide.

Finally,     I am indebted    to Karma Tshering         for his keen insight and perspectives,       as well as his
kind hospitality.       While this assessment was very much ajoint               process, and his thoughts     are
integrated      throughout    the report, all errors and omissions        are my own.      I am also indebted    to
Tobgay Namgyel,           Chadho Tenzin Jessica Mott and Frederick              Swartzendruber     for their comments
on a previous draft of this report.

J. Ervin, July, 2002



                                                                                                                       6

            Figure      2.1:    Map of Protected           Area System in Bhutan




                        BiologScal               Corridors                   linking        Protected             Areas
                                 A Gift      to the Earth                   from  the People                of Bhutan




Phibrm   Wildlife   Sanctuary        r?q  Biol~icai   Corridors                    Major   Rioerr
                                                                                -  Protected    Areas Boundary
RoyalManar     National   Park            Black  klounraitw    National  Park
                                                                                   Inbernational    Boundaq
SaktengWildlife     Sanctuary             liqme  Dwji  National    Park
                                       ~'
Thrumrin@      La National   Par&         Bomdelling    Wildlife   Sanctuary                                     0         50         100
Towsa   Swict   Nature                    Khaling   Wildlife   Sanctuavj                                                               I




                                                                                                                                 7

3. T    EATS AND PRESSURES

                                              Overview

a  As identified in the first phaseof the assessment,the major threats facing the four
   operational protected areasare: grazing, poaching, road construction, collection of
   non-timber forest products (NTFPs), timber felling, road construction/widening,
   tseri/pangshing cultivation (low and high-altitude slash and burn agriculture),
   firewood collection, and anthropogenic fires. Each of these threats and pressuresis
   discussed in the next section.

., Each park manager identified the degreeof past pressures and of future threats within
   his park by determining a range of between 1 and 4 for a) the geographic range
   (localized, scattered, widespread or throughout); b) the impact (mild, moderate, high
   or severe), and c) the permanence (short term. medium term, long term and
   permanent) of each pressure and threat (seeAppendix E). A numerical score for each
   pressure and threat was then calculated by multiplying        the three figures together, for
   an index ranging from 1 to 64..

               Figure 3.1: Overall Threats




              Figure 3.2: Average Degree of `I`hreat and Pressure


                             Average      Degree of Threat and Pressure


                       25  i                                            /

                   ii  20  i
                   b   15 j                                               @!IPressure

                  B    ,oi

                        5  1

                        OL         .-FL...-




                      9

e The first figure above (3.1) illustrates the relative degree of threat for all eight
  activities within each protected area; grazing and road development are the two most
  significant threats, followed by poaching, NTFPs and firewood collection.

0 The second figure above (3.2) illustrates the average degree of threat and pressure for
  each activity across all protected areas. The trends closely match the first Ggure;
  grazing and road building have the highest average degree of threat, followed by
  poaching and NTFP harvesting.

e The figure below (3.3) illustrates the overall degree of threat by aggregating all past
  pressuresand future threats within each protected area.TNP has had the highest
  degree of pressure in the past, and will continue to face the highest degree of threat in
  the future. JSW appearsto be the most secure of the four areas.

               Figure 3.3: Cumulative Pressuresand Threats


                *                    Cumulative   pressures    and threats
                fj  140  i -,- -- __. -_                              ^ _-.            _.~^.   . _

                2   120  /

                iii
                f   100
                     8oi i


                8    6Oj
                ;    40 1

                5g   200 i --           --_..-         -_--  - .            - .._ -.-.         --
                Q                 JD              JSW               TNP                 BWS
                                                        OTotal  pressures       Total  threats




0 In the following sections, each threat/pressure is discussed. A chart accompanies each
  activity, illustrating the degree of past pressureand future threat within each park for
  that activity.   Also included is the averagedegree of pressure and threat across all
  protected areas. Note that the vertical scale (degree of pressure and threat) varies
  considerably for each activity.              For example. grazing has a scale of0 to 25, while
  timber felling has a scale of only 1 to 3. These graphs are intended to provide a
  comparison between protected areas,while the graphs above provide an overall
  comparison between threats.

0 The scale of each graph is basedon an index from 1 through 64 (see also Appendix
  E). A threat receiving a score of 1 to 4 can be considered minor or insignificant; 6 to
  9 is moderate; 12 to 18 is strong; and greater than 18 is severe. (A score of 64 is very
  rare; it would indicate that a threat occurs throughout a park, causes severe damage,
  and is permanent in nature).

                        Threats and Pressures:      aching  nrtd ~~~~~~~
                     `4 verage Pressure:  7.5       .4 verage  Threat: 4.5




 e This activity includes poaching for commercial trade (e.g. musk deer, black bear,
   covd'ceps) and for consumption (e.g. blood pheasant, alpine pheasant); as well as
   trapping, poisoning and shooting animals in order to protect crops (e.g. wild boar) and
   livestock (e.g. tiger, leopard, wild dogs).

 . The figure above shows the degree of past pressure and of future threats of poaching
   and killing for each protected area. This activity is expected to remain constant in JD
   and JSW, but decreaseconsiderably in TNP and BWS. However, this expectation is
   based on several assumptions, including 1) that the number of poachers will remain
   constant or decrease;2) that the market value for poached animals will remain
   constant; 3) that reproductive rates of species widely poached (e.g. musk deer) can
   sustain current levels of poaching; 4) that human/wildlife conflicts in the form of crop
   damage and livestock depredation will remain constant or decrease; and 5) that
   staffing, particularly of patrolling guards, will be increased to sufficient levels.

 0 Data are unavailable regarding the degreeof poaching and killing for any species. In
   BWS. for example, 3 tigers have reportedly been killed in the past, but this is only the
   reported figure. Killing of tigers and leopards has also been reported in TNP.

.  Similarly. data are unavailable regarding the actual population of rare species, such as
   musk deer, as is the impact that poaching may have on the population. In JDNP
   alone, park officials apprehended I94 poachers in one year. A single poacher
   generally sets a trap line of between 5 and 6 kilometers, and may trap as many as a
   dozen or more deer at once. Becausethe traps kill both males and females alike,
   poaching of musk deer is likely to have a relatively high impact. Although one park
   manager felt that musk deer populations could sustain such levels without much
   impact, given a likely high reproductive rate, he stressedthat this was speculation
   only.


l  Two park managers mentioned that they suspectedpoaching of black bearswithin
   their parks in the past, primarily for trade to the Chinese market.


l  While poaching for commercial trade is generally considered to be conducted by
   outsiders (generally Indian and Chinese nationals), poaching for consumption,



                                                                                          10

especially of blood pheasant.is considered a local activity.    Road workers in
particular, whose diet is likely to be restricted, may depend on poaching to
supplement their diet.

Killing of wild dogs and/or wild boar was common in all four protected areas,but
most particularly in BWS and TNP

Cord!ceps, or Chinese caterpillar, was also widely reported to be poached in fairly
high volume, especially in JD. The park manager remarked, "U'e have no idea of the
impact of harvesting on cordcyceps. That's precisely the problem, we have very little
information on the species itself, or its lifecycle, let alone any information on how
this species affects other parts of the ecosystem." He also noted that cordyceps
cultivation, and/or legalizing trade: along with sustainable harvesting guidelines and
practices, could be an alternative economic opportunity for communities within the
park.

Two park managers noted that poaching of musk deer is seasonal,with a spring
seasonand a late fall season,and therefore could be more strategically managed by
better timing of guard patrols. They also noted that simply increasing their presence
within the park, seemed to help decreaselevels of poaching.

All four park managers noted the escalation of human/wildlife      conflicts, particularly
of crop damage by wild boar. NCD is embarking on a pilot project to cull wild boar
populations in a buffer zone near one park.

The level of livestock killed by wildlife is considerable, and park managers generally
feel that local communities bear a heavy cost in such depredation.

While this level of livestock depredation places a burden on local communities, it
may also mean that some species,particularly those in marginal habitats or at the
extent of their distribution range, may depend on the occasional livestock to
supplement their diet. A WWF report on snow leopards in Nepal, for example, found
that loss of habitat, poaching of prey species, the abundance of livestock adjacent to
protected areas,and the high density of snow leopards within protected areas,resulted
in the dependenceof many snow leopards on domestic livestock for at least part of
their diet.

The specific relation between wild boar, and its natural predator wild dog, is not
clear. Whether areasof high crop damage from wild boar can be attributed to a
decreasein the wild dog population is uncertain.

NCD, with support from Save the Tiger Foundation, is exploring mechanisms for
compensating farmers for documented casesof livestock killed by tigers.

Two external stakeholders disagreed with the findings that the threat of wildlife
poaching and killing will be reduced. Remarked one respondent, "One of the main



                                                                                          I I

challenges in the future will be resolving human/wildlife conflicts. The situation is
very complicated, and we're at a crucial stage. W7ecan manage ecological processes,
but when it comes to social processes,we need to think creatively about how to bring
people on board. Otherwise. we're going to see a huge increase in these activities."
Another remarked, "We're asking villagers to pay a huge social cost, by guarding
their crops and livestock. I don't know if they're able or willing to continue to pay
these costs."

                          Threats and Pressures - Grazing
                 Average Pressure: 14           Average Threat: 12




As shown in the -Figureabove, grazing has been the largest pressure in the past, and
posesthe significant overall threat in the future for the combined four parks. TNP has
been most affected in the past. and will continue to face future threats, albeit at a
slightly diminished scale. Grazing in JD and JSW is expected to remain constant, and
in BWS to be only a minor threat. In the past, grazing has increased sharply in BWS,
whereas it has remained nearly constant or decreasedin the remaining three protected
areas.

Grazing is by yaks, cows and sheep,herded by both nomadic and residential
communities.

All of the existing ICDP plans explore options for reducing grazing. Specific
measures include 1) the replacement of current livestock with more productive
breeds; 2) the improvement of pasture management through prescribed burning and
livestock control: and 3) the establishment of fodder species (e.g. willow).

Park managers expressedgreat difficulty in determining the range, impact and
permanence of grazing, both as a past pressure and as a future threat. One park
manager noted some anecdotal evidence of changes in species composition from
grazing, particularly in broad-leaf forests. He also mentioned that a recent study had
found changes in pH levels in the soil caused by grazing within his park. Another
noted that clover was now widespread, as a result of imported cattle feed.

Because grazing has been an activity historically associated with each park, and
becausethere was not a clear understanding about the degree of impact, all four park
managers expressed some reservation about categorizing grazing as a threat, yet they



                                                                                      12

    also recognized that there were some negative impacts from grazing. "I know when it
    is really bad when I see it," remarked one park manager, `-but I can't really say at
    w.hatpoint it starts becoming bad."

 0  The historical nature of grazing further compounds difficulties in collecting data on
   actual impacts. Remarked one park manager, -`We would collect data on grazing, but
   we just don't have any baseline data for what we're supposed to be measuring
   against." Indeed, a warden from TNP (in the buffer zone of Phubjika Valley),
   described how grazing is essential to maintaining black-necked crane habitat, and
   how a recent experimental area that was excluded from grazing became completely
   uselesscrane habitat within two years.

 * The effects of grazing fall along a gradient, from clearly beneficial, to benign. to
   detrimental, to severe(see below), with examples of each type found throughout the
   park system, as well as throughout the surrounding landscape.




 0 It is clear that the frequency, intensity and scale of grazing vary within each park and
   from park to park, and therefore the degreeof impact from grazing varies
   considerably. However, there is no clear mechanism for determining the actual
   degree of impact within any one area,nor are there any baseline data from which to
   detect changes.

0  Nearly all of community members living within the protected areasdepend on
   grazing for their livelihoods. According to park managers, most families maintain a
   herd of at least 100 animals.

*  In some areaswithin some parks, grazing had increased dramatically because
   sensitive areaswere being grazed more intensively, without adequaterecovery time.
   Remarked on park manager, "We have yaks grazing here in one part of the year, and
   then cows in another part of the year, and sometimes they're both grazing at the same
   time. And every year it seemslike it's more and more!"


l  There is little, if any, consensusregarding the degree to which grazing is a threat.

0  Grazing policies add to the uncertainty and anxiety about grazing in parks.
   Commented one park staff: -`Range lands are a limited resource, and we can't assume
   that everyone who wants to graze w-ill be able to do so in the future, even though they
   are supposedto be able to. Every year it's increasing. Sometimes the government
   gives families some yaks, but no land to graze on. So they end up in the park. I hope
   the government begins to rethink grazing policies."



                                                                                         13

                          Threats and Pressures - Fishing
                   A verage Pressure: 1.25        Average Threat ..5




Fishing, while noted as a threat in several of the areasduring the first phase of the
assessment,proved to be a very minor pressure in the past, and an almost non-existent
threat in the future.

Wardens and park managers noted that fishing was characteristically benign, using
simple fishing equipment such as poles and small nets, rather than large nets and
dynamite.

Data on fish populations and diversity are non-existent.

The introduction of trout in one park could be an issue worth monitoring in the future.
particularly of the genetic integrity of local fish populations.

Residents from within the park or the buffer zone primarily conducted fishing for
local consumption.

All four park managers felt that research,monitoring and control of fishing was a low
priority.




                                                                                      14

                         Threats  and Pressures   - Timber    felling
                   Average   Pressure:  .7.5       Average     Threat 2.75




a  Timber is felled primarily for the construction of houses and for rooting shingles.
   While houses are only allowed to be rebuilt every 30 years, shingling takes place
  every three to five years. Because of the presenceof heart rot in some areas,such as
  as JSWP, many trees are cut indiscriminately, and there is a high degree of waste -
  one park manager estimated that two out of every three trees cut for shingles is
  wasted.

o In some areas (e.g. JSWP), logging had taken place prior to the designation of the
  areaas a national park.

E Timber felling is a moderate threat in JD, where new construction will likely place
  increased demands on timber harvesting.

0 Some policies regarding forest harvesting may aggravate future threats, particularly
  during the transition in which park staff will take over harvesting-related activities
  previously conducted by the district office, such as marking of trees. "The lines of
  jurisdiction are not clear," remarked on park manager, "sometimes the district
  requires a certain amount of timber, and they want certain species that are only
  available in sensitive areas,but they harvest there anyway. Who will be responsible
  for managing these areas,what kind of management will there be, and what is the
  best way to sustain the resourceswithin the park?"

0 The transition to taking over "territorial" activities is likely to place a considerable
  strain on the already overburdened park staff. Said one warden, "We're supposedto
  be marking trees, but we're also supposedto be in the office now, so it will be
  tempting to just say to community members `Here, go mark your own trees and then
  cut them down."'

0 All four park managers noted that timber felling activities in the future would all be
  legal (illegal harvesting does not appearto be a threat), and would all be for local
  construction. Although on areacontained an actively harvested "forest management
  unit" within the buffer zone: this zone is a residual categorization, and will be phased
  out in several years.

                                                  oaii construction
                                                Average    Threat:  Il. 75




Th'P is the only protected area with a major road running through its core area. This
road is undergoing an extensive widening process. Previously, travelers from eastern
Bhutan to the western part of the country traveled via a southerly passagethrough
India. Because of the political troubles in Assam, this route was now considered too
dangerous, and the country's only east/west highway runs directly through TNP. In
addition to the road widening, three bypassesare planned within the park's core zone.

Roads constitute a major threat to TNP, a moderate threat to JD, a very minor threat
to BWS, and no threat to JSW.

There are several new "feeder" roads planned within JD, which would increase access
and vulnerability, and would likely lead to increased development and demand on
park resources.

Roads within the parks have both direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts include
soil erosion, stream siltation, salt runoff, and direct loss of habitat. Indirect impacts
include the increased presenceof road workers: increased traffic and wildlife impacts,
and increased accessand vulnerability to threats such as poaching and NTFP
harvesting.

The roads require constant maintenance, and as a result, road workers have semi-
permanent housing at intervals along the road. In several cases,these workers were
the largest source of blood pheasantpoaching. Other impacts include the increased
presenceof dogs, which roam freely about the parks.

Environmentally sensitive road construction and silent blasting techniques were
planned for the road construction processwithin TNP, but these would mitigate only
some of the direct effects.

Controlled road widening is permissible within the park, but construction of new
roads within the core area is not allowed by the Forest and Nature Conservation Act
of 199.5;bypassescannot legally be considered without modifying this act.

Unlike other threats, road construction is completely under governmental control.



                                                                                         16

                               Threats   and Pressures  - Fires
                     Average Pressure:   3.75       Average   Threat: 1.25




 0 In three of the areas,anthropogenic fires have beenonly a very minor pressure, while
   in BWS it has had a greater degree of impact in the past. It remains as only a very
   minor threat in all four parks.

 * During discussions with park managers, it was clear that many park staff had
   conflicting beliefs toward fires. While the official policy focused on fire suppression,
   many saw the potential benefits of controlled fires, including improved grazing,
   potential forest restoration, better landscapepatchiness. and the potential for
   lemongrass cultivation in some ecosystems. One park manager stated "I actually
   wish I had a little more tire in my park."

   There was no consensusregarding the degreeto which fire had been a historic
l

   disturbance agent in any of the ecosystems, although the Chir pine system was
   identified as likely to be a fire-dependent ecosystem.

*  There is little researchor data regarding either the effects of anthropogenic fires, nor
   the effects of fire suppression in any of the parks.

.  There is a pilot program in place consisting of experimental burning in the buffer
   zone of TNP in order to improve grazing pastures,and burning as an agent of
   lemongrass cultivation.   These pilot programs are in initial stages,however.




                                                                                          17

                                Threats and Pressures - NTFPs
                   A verage Pressure: 8.25           Average Threat: 4




Although Bhutan is renowned for its rich history in traditional medicine, almost all of
which depends on non-timber forest products (e.g. roots, leaves, flowers, buds, bark
and fruits), there is little information at the park level regarding NTFP resources,
extent of community use, degree of impact from harvesting, ecosystem function of
the NTFPs, or potential for sustainable harvesting and marketing of such products.
There are some studies available at a national level, however, including an FAO
report: Non-Wood Products of Bhutan, FAO, Bangkok, no. 1996!6.

There had been extensive NTFP pressure in BWS, but the park manager expected this
pressureto decreasedramatically. Although none of the park managers saw NTFPs
as anything more than a minor threat, JD is expected to see some increase in NTFP
use.

This low degree of threat, however, may be attributed to a lack of park manager
knowledge regarding the extent and type of use of NTFPs within their parks. In two
separateparks, two managers both claimed that NTFP was very low to non-existent,
while the wardens in both those parks portrayed a different picture. "It's hard to say,
but I was talking to one man from the community, and he said NTFP use was very
high in this park," said one. Another said "NTFPs are showing up in the local
market, and you have to ask, where are people getting these from?"

One external stakeholder commented "NTFPs are very important here. Because
farmers rely on subsistence farming, cash, food and medicine are in short supply.
The terrain is difficult, and there is a growing market for NTFPs. So of course
villagers depend on these. And there is a very high value on some medicinal plants,
especially those at high altitudes. NTFP poaching is very much a threat!"

There is an NTFP study proposed for C'ra, which would explore the potential for
medicinal plant harvesting as a sustainable business.

The main products harvested include bark, incense, lemongrass, bamboo, pipal
leaves, mushrooms, and a wide variety of medicinal plants.




                                                                                     18

 *  The market for these products can be highly volatile; the price for Matsutake
    mushrooms in 1999 was 800 nulgrum per kilogram (about $20), whereas in 2000 the
   price sank to less than 100 nulgrum per kilogram (about $2.50).

 0  Several donors and policy makers remarked that the development of projects for the
   sustainable management and marketing of NTFPs was a major opportunity for
   sustainable development, and they hoped to pursue such plans within their own
   organizations.

 . The lack of national NTFP policies was highlighted as a problem: "`There are no clear
   policy guidelines for harvesting NTFPs, and the legislation is as good as non existent
   in this respect. For example, lemon grass and mushrooms - the whole forest is
   accessible, and people do go out and collect thesethings, but there's no demarcation
   of areas,no coordination, no monitoring of what's happening. A lot of these
   resources are facing gradual extinction, becausethey are constantly being depleted."




                   ~~~re~~sarzd~res~~~re~- Tser    angshing culiivntion
                    Average Pressure: 4.5        Average Threat: .7.5




0  Tseri (low elevation) and pangshing (high elevation) cultivation appears as a mild to
   moderate pressure in the past, and as an almost non-existent threat in all four areas.

   In some areas,such as TNP: the park manager felt that there were simply no more
l
   areaswhere such cultivation could take place. Others felt that government policies
   strongly discouraged future cultivation (Tseri cultivation is officially banned in public
   areas,although it is allowed on private landholdings within the park).

0  In some integrated conservation development plans (ICDPs), previously cultivated
   tseri areaswere recommended for the cultivation of NTFPs and other products.

0  The degree to which such practices had had an impact differed from park to park. In
   BWS, for example, the pressurehas been more severe than in TNP, primarily because
   older, larger trees had been cut.



                                                                                          19

                      Threats and Pressures - Firewood collection
                  Average Pressure: 2.25         Average Threat: 2.75




l Overall, firewood collection in the past has been a mild to moderate pressure in the
  park.


l Each family is allowed a truckload (8 cubic meters) of firewood each year. The
  average household, however, uses 2 to 3 truckloads of firewood per year, depending
  on elevation.

0 Many park managers felt that firewood collection could be greatly reduced (some
  estimated by 30 to 50%) if plans for expanding hydro-electric power came through
  (within the next 5 years) for community members living within the parks or buffer
  zones.


l An increasing population in and around JD and `I'TUPwas the underlying reason for an
  increased level of threat in the future. Said one park manager, "It's not too bad now,
  but if the population grows any more, it could become a major threat in the future."

* Residents within the park and buffer zone may currently collect unlimited quantities
  of dry fallen wood without a permit. Two park managers admitted that illegal tree
  girdling, followed by harvest of the dead tree in successive years, was a common
  practice.




                                                                                      20

                                                       Vdnerahiiitj


                               Average      vulnerability         of all four   protected        areas




   monitoring   epioitation    bribery    civil unrest  conflicting     re5ource   accessibility    demand    economic     difficult

                                                         practices        vaIlJe                              pressure   recruitment




 e  On average, the four protected areashad a moderate degree of vulnerability, with
    BWS having a slightly higher degreeof vulnerability, followed closely by TNP.

 a  Factors considered in determining vulnerability included 1j degree of difficulty in
    monitoring the protected area; 2) pressureto exploit the park's resources; 3) presence
    or absenceof bribery and/or corruption; 4) civil unrest; 5) cultural practices that
    conflicted with park objectives; 6) high value of the park's resources; 7) accessibility
    (i.e. porous border); 8) demand for products from the park; 9) economic pressuresin
    the surrounding area; and 10) difficulty in recruiting adequate staff.

 9  Of these 10 elements of vulnerability, however?four received an average of 3.5 or
    greater: difficulty in monitoring, high resource value, high demand, and difficulty in
    recruiting staff. Taken together, these four conditions place a special emphasis on the
    likelihood of threats such as poaching and NTFP harvesting occurring or increasing in
    the future.



                           Tremis that may pose potential threats in the future:
                         Bioprospecting, Ecotourism, and Global Climate Change

    Although not identified as a threat during either the tirst or the second phaseof the
l
    assessment,three trends emerged through discussions with park managers, NCD staff
    and external stakeholders. Two of these, bioprospecting and ecotourism, are not
    necessarily threats; indeed they have the potential to provide an array of benefits.
    The most compelling being a long-term source of income for the protected area
    system. However, a threat may occur if these activities are not adequately managed
    in the future.




                                                                                                                              21

Bioprospecting
0   Several reports, and at least one international development agency, viewed
    bioprospecting of Bhutan's biological resources as a potential source of substantial
    income in the future. While bioprospecting efforts are only in a nascent stage,
   already biopirates have stolen, reproduced and marketed rare orchids from Bhutan.
   Given the notorious history of bioprospecting in the past (e.g. attempts by U.S.
   companies to "trademark" Basmati rice from India), it is entirely possible that
   companies may covertly gather plant materials and attempt to trademark their genetic
   material.

0  This is a potential threat that Rhutan's government in general, and NCD in particular,
   need to monitor closely, given the enormous diversity found within the national
   parks, and the degree of traditional knowledge about plant properties.

*  Bioprospecting also representsa tremendous opportunity for Bhutan, given that over
   200 NTFPs are regularly used for medicinal value. However, it will also be important
   to safeguard the country's intellectual and genetic property rights.

Ecotourism
8  While Bhutan's new tourism slogan of "high value low impact" is laudable, and
   viewed as a model for responsible tourism development, tourism within the national
   parks remains largely undeveloped and unplanned. (Although at the time of writing
   this report, NCD was conducting an ecotourism workshop aimed at impacts on the
   protected areas). While entrepreneurswithin the buffer zones of some parks are
   already converting their homes into "homestay" facilities in anticipation of increased
   volumes of tourism, and an airstrip is planned within an easy drive to TNP, the parks
   themselves have yet to seriously plan for increased tourism. Specifically, park
   managers have yet to identify potential hiking areas,develop tourist facilities,
   understand potential impacts of tourism, and explore revenue generating mechanisms.

*  Volumes of tourists have remained fairly low, largely due to government policies
   requiring that tourists spend $200 per day. The number of tourists to Bhutan in 2000
   was 7,559; however, only 926 of those were classified as trekkers (as opposed to
   cultural tourists, who remain in Paro or Thimphu). Nonetheless, the 10.5 million US
   dollars these tourists bring in is an alluring reminder of the potential of tourism to
   provide substantial amounts of revenue in the future.

0  Tourism has shown up as a major threat to parks throughout Russia and China; it has
   already been a major pressure in Kepal. It is likely, therefore, that if tourism should
   increase in Bhutan, it has the potential to have negative consequences,and these may
   be exacerbated in parks.

o  A recent national strategy on ecotourism highlights alternative tourism strategies (e.g.
   homestays, agrotourism), and identifies two potential park destinations for increased
   ecotourism, JD and TNP.




                                                                                          22

*  One park staff had this to say about tourism: "We need to think about tourism in the
   next 20 years, so we need to start thinking now. We need to create a good package.
   with interpretive tools, and mechanisms to provide local people with an income from
   tourism. We need the skills to provide the facilities. And to do all that, we need to
   empower local people. But the tourism development program is ad hoc, and that
   won't suffice - we need a substantial amount of money to create these packages."


Global climate change:
*  This threat is especially likely for forest ecosystems at the northern and southernmost
   extent of their range, as well as for high elevation areas. In particular, Jigme Dorji
   and high elevation areasof Jigme Sangye Wangchuk National Park may be especially
   vulnerable to global climate change. .4 retreat of glaciers of 20 to 30 meters per year
   has already been recorded.

0  A recent study found that several dozen high elevation lakes in Bhutan may burst
   their banks and cause localized but severeflooding within the next decade
   (Eiili,.  \`i Ii \Z .!`l'C~lj-i.liilt~j~.~l~:~ -ILiOil?iliil,lil   g!l iilL ilit'\ ;L' iitml).



e  As the range and distribution of key species may shift over the next 20 to 50 years,
   the current design and layout of the protected area system and biological corridors
   may become less viable. There is currently no study of the potential impacts of
   global climate change on Bhutan's parks.




                                                                                                     23

4. MA;V/IGEhfENT        EFFECTIVENESS

This section covers the findings of questions 7 through 15 ofthe Rapid Assessment
Questionnaire (see Appendix E). Below is a graph illustrating the overall management
effectiveness of each of the four parks included in the assessment. `CVitha few exceptions
(e.g. legal status and security; and communication: there is very little variation from park
to park in management effectiveness. Overall averagesacross all four are very similar.


                    OVEFtALL            MANAGEMENT                     EFFECTIVENESS


                                            Management                 Effectiveness


   25

   20

   15

   10

     5

     0




Below, results from each set of questions are first presented in graph form, followed by
an explanatory narrative for each question. The scale is from 0 to 5; scores of3 and
higher are considered satisfactory


                               OBJECTIVES                     (Questions 7a-7e)


                                                       Objectives




                                                                                           i  EIJD


                                                                                           1  OTNP

                                                                                           ; `OBWS


                     CO"SeWe    speciiic ob]  consistenr    employees  communities AVERAGE
                     biodwewty                 phX5         understand   S"ppWl




                                                                                                      24

 la: The PA objectives provide for the protection and maintenance of biological
diversity.
Average score: 5
Discussion: All four protected areashave clear objectives for protecting and maintaining
biological diversity.

7b: The objectives of the protected area are clearLy stated in the management plan,
Average score: 2
Discussion: While each of the protected areashad broad objectives that focused on the
conservation of biodiversity, management plans had only vague objectives for the
biodiversity assetswithin the parks. A handful of key species were often identified (e.g.
tiger, takin, red panda, snow leopard), but even where they were identified, objectives
were vague, such as "maintain populations of key species" or "protect populations."

7~: The management policies and plans are consistent with the protected area
objectives.
Average score: 5
Discussion: Park managers identified this as a clear strength of the protected area system;
policies and plans are generally consistent with PA objectives.

7d: PA employees and administrators understand the PA objectives.
Average score: 3.5
Discussion: Although park managers and high-level officials clearly understand the P,4
objectives, three park managers felt that their guards and wardens may have only a
general and vague understanding of the objectives.

7e: Local communities support the overall objectives of the protected area.
Average score: 2.5
Discussion: None of the park managers felt they could answer an unequivocal yes to this
question. Two mentioned the initial resentment that many communities felt when the
park was first established. All mentioned that local communities often had high (and
unrealistic) expectations regarding the park as a source of income, and did not clearly
understand why the park had been established. One highlighted problems with park
zoning as a specific problem area. However, park managers also felt that this perception
w-asgradually changing, partly as a result of the educational efforts of the Royal Society
for the Protection of Nature (RSPN), and other educational efforts. The prevailing
outreach attitude toward local communities was expressedby one warden, who remarked
"U'e haven't had enough time to convince them about why the park is here yet."




                                                                                         25

                  LEGAL       STATUS AND SEWRITY                      (Questions 8a-8e)


                                        Legal      status and security

                5  .                                                                           "

                4
                                                                                               j F?JD
                3                                                                                  JSW

                2 '                                                                            ; CITNP
                                                                                                 OBWS
                1 I



                    long-term    tenure    demarcation         law      community     AVERAGE
                      status                             enforcement     conflicts




8a: The PA has hong-term, ~ega~~y-bi~d~~gprotection.
Average score: 4.5
Discussion: Three park managers felt that their parks were fully secure. One expressed
some hesitation, noting that park boundaries were subject to negotiation and the whims of
political will. "They've already changed the boundaries twice, so they could change them
again - for the worse."

                                      utes re~~~~~~ghd              tenure or use rights.
Average score: 3
Discussion:    Two park managers felt that there were no such disputes. However, two felt
that there were such disputes, one becauseof the lack of clarity regarding traditional
grazing rights within different park zones, and the other becauseadministrative
boundaries between park authorities and district authorities conflicted and overlapped,
causing confusion for local community members.

SC:Boundary demarcation is adequate to meet the PA objectives.
Average score: 3
Discussion: Two park managers felt that boundary demarcation is adequate. Two felt
that the demarcation of zones was unclear, including the core zone and buffer zone. All
four felt that physical boundary demarcation was an area for improvement.

8d: There is effective enforcement of all laws within the PA.
Average score: I
Discussion: All four park managers identified problems with law enforcement including
illegal timber harvesting, grazing, poaching and NTFP collection.                     The single cause
attributed to low law enforcement was inadequate field-level staff. Despite the overall
score in law enforcement, there have been significant efforts in this area. For example,
TKP has conducted a workshop on anti-poaching and has formed patrolling squads.




                                                                                                         26

Se: Conflicts with local community are resolvedfairly and effective/y.
Average score: 4.5
Discussion: For the most part, conflicts are quickly and fairly resolved. Park managers
identified a few minor problems, including crop destruction by wild boar, and the overlap
between district and park authorities.

                  PA SITE DES IGN AND PLANNING                    (Questions 9a-9e)


                                            PA Site design
                                     d
         5

         4
                                                                                      BJD
         3 1                                                                            JSW

         2                                                                            OTNP
                                                                                      0 BWS
         1 j/
         0 I.-                                                           --
              PA layout   surrounding    PA stting    zoning    linkages    AVERAGE
                                use




9a: The layout and configuration of the PA optimizes the conservation of b~odive~s~~~
Average score: 5
Discussion: The layout and contiguration of the protected areas is one of the unqualified
strengths of the entire protected area system. The areas were designed to optimize
biodiversity conservation; two parks had recently adjusted their boundaries in order to
better protected habitat of key species.

96: The land use in the surrounding area (bluffer, corridor) enables effective
management.
Average score: 4
Discussion:    All four protected areasincluded a buffer zone, averaging from 3 to 5
kilometers around the park's core zone. All are connected via biological corridors to
another protected area. Two park managers mentioned some minor problems. These
included the existence of a forest management unit is directly adjacent to his park
(although this will be phasedout shortly); problems with clearly defining the buffer zone;
and the uncertain legal status of the biological corridors.

9c: The siting of the protected area is consistent with the objectives.
Average score: 5
Discussion:    Siting is another of the unqualified strengths of the protected area system.
The siting for new protected areaswas basedon preliminary wildlife surveys (particularly
tiger surveys), as well as existing land use patterns. Together, the protected area system
captures a good representation of the country's broad range of ecosystem types.



                                                                                             27

 9d: The zoning system within the park is adequate to achieve the protected area
objectives.
Average score: 1.5
Discussion:    All park managers expressedconcern with the current zoning system.
Zones were demarcated largely on paper and not on the ground. Zoning was also a major
source of community tensions, particularly for grazing rights. One park manager
mentioned the need for better community involvement in determining the location of the
zones. In addition, several park managers confided that they were not really sure the
parks even needed zoning, or at least that NCD needed to create consistent zoning
policies and procedures for the entire protected area system, rather than leaving it up to
each park manager. Remarked one park manager, "We have to ask ourselves, what are
we buffering from ? It's great to hav-ea 5 kilometer buffer zone on paper, but we really
need to ask ourselves what is happening on the ground."

9e: The protected area is linked to another area of conserved and/or protected land.
Average score: 5
Discussion:    Connectivity between protected areasis another obvious strength of the
protected area system. All are connected via biological corridors, and TNP is directly
adjacent to Royal Manas National Park. The question of resolving legal status of the
biological corridors, however, still exists.


                                    STAFF (Questions lo-10e)


                                                   Staff


        5  ;

        4
                                                                                         I!!IJD
        3  j!j
                                                                                            JSW

        21                                                                               OTNP
                                                                                         ClBWS
        1  /
           I

        0  i
              # of staff    skills    organization    support    conditions    AVERAG  E




10a: The number of staff is sufficient to effectively manage the area.
Average score: 0
Discussion: Inadequate staffing is one of the few unqualified weaknesses of the protected
area system. All of the park managers expressedan acute shortage of staff, most
frequently at the warden and park guard levels. The short fall between approved staff in
the management plan and existing staff fell roughly between 60% and 80%. The impacts
of low staffing were widespread, with park managers citing poor to ineffective law



                                                                                                   28

enforcement: poor threat detection. mitigation, monitoring or prevention; high workloads:
 low staff morale; poor staff organization: inadequate research and education outputs; and
a chronic crisis management mode at all levels, from NCD to park guard levels.


            I     BWS
                                 JSW              TNP                JO




The reasonscited for low staffing are multiple.      With a relatively low population, Bhutan
faces a widespread shortage of human resources in all sectors. This shortage is
compounded by bottlenecks produced by the low annual output of trainees from the
Natural Resources Technical Institute (NRTI), and more acutely from the Bhutan
Forestry Institute (BFI). NTRI only produces 25 graduates per year; and RF1 produces
only 35. Park managers are not only limited to hiring from this small pool, they must
also compete with the Ministry of Agriculture and other agencies for these graduates.

Another area of concern is the high dependenceon external consultants, particularly for
biodiaersity inventory skills, without adequatetransfer of skills. This problem represents
a major lost opportunity in capacity building. One warden remarked "`We had two
consultants come in a few years ago to identify bird species. There were three of us on
the team who really wanted to learn how to do bird surveys, but after a day or two it
became clear that all we were going to do was prepare meals for them and show them the
trails."

Another reason for staff shortages is the frequency of training for existing staff. While
training is an obvious strength, several park managers and staff members felt that an
opportunistic, ad hoc training program, which often provided the wrong people with the
inappropriate skills, actually compounded the problem. One park has had four different
park managers in less than five years. The anticipated increase in workload when park
staff take on a whole new suite of "territorial" responsibilities will only add to the
problems in coming months. A final reason for the shortage of staff is the official
government policy of keeping government "small, compact and dynamic."

106: St&j members have adequate skills to conduct management activities.
Average score: 3.5
Discussion: While on average park staff members have adequate skills, the identification,
surveying, and monitoring of biodiversity remains a critical gap. Park managers
identified a range of simple but critical skills, such as plant and animal identification, GIS
mapping, and simple surveying skills that would greatly improve their ability to develop
natural resource inventories. One park manager also identified community relations and
conflict resolution as an area for skills improvement.

I&:   There is clear internal organization (e.g.job descriptions).



                                                                                            29

Average    score:      5
Disc~ssiun: All park managers felt that there was clear internal organization, and that all
staff understood their responsibilities.

IQd: Staff support (e.g. training, supervision, monitoring) is appropriate to the needs of
the staff
Average score: 4
Discussion:         Although park managers felt that training was an overall strength, there
were some concerns about the ad hoc nature of training opportunities, and reservations
about whether or not the trainings were effective in providing key skills. Remarked one
park manager, "A short term avian surveying training opportunity opened up last month,
but the person who should have gone wasn't available, so I had to send someone else."

IOe: Staff employment conditions (e.g. salaries, benefits, working environment) are
sufficient to retain stafJ:
Average score: 5
Discussion:        Park managers considered staff conditions adequate,especially when
compared with other agencies. Employees generally view the high degree of training
opportunities as a major benefit. and salaries are consistent with or above local norms.
Despite the lack of human resourcesthroughout the country. jobs are very scarce, and
several employees expressedrelief in having a secure, well-paying job.

           ~Q~~~iNI~ATIO~                    AND INFORMATION             (Questions 1la-lle)


                              Communication         and information




                                                                                       JD
                                                                                       JSW
                                                                                     OTNP
                                                                                     0 BWS



           effective      means  of      data      PA data   comm.   with  AVERAGE
            comm           comm.     processing                 local




Ila:  There is effective communication between all protected area staff and
administration.
Average score: 3.25
Discussion: Two managers felt that communication between staff was adequate,
particularly since they had established monthly meetings with all park staff. One
manager felt that communication could be improved, especially between his office and




                                                                                                30

 NCD Headquarters. One manager felt that communication was entirely inadequate,
 primarily becauseof a lack of communication means.

 I1 6: Means of communication      betweenfield and office staff are adequate (e.g. radios,
 telephones).
Average score: 1.25
 Discussion: The lack of adequatecommunication means is a clear problem among ail
 protected areas. Even though there may be a telephone at a local warden's office, this
 may not be enough to ensure adequatecommunication.         One warden explains, "My
 telephone is solar powered, and it doesn't always work. If I had more battery capacity, I
 could have telephone accessfull time." Another warden adds, "Communication          is okay
 with park headquarters,and w-ecommunicate frequently, but it is almost impossible to
 reach guards in the field. I just don't have the equipment I need." One result of
 inadequate communication means is that wardens and guards are often unable to catch
 poachers. Explains one warden, "Last year, I suspectedthat there were poachers in one
 area of the park, but I was unable to call for back up support. It is dangerous for one or
 two unarmed guards to try and go in and catch a gang of armed poachers." Park staff
 identified the following specific communication means: high-powered wireless radios,
 handsets,walkie-talkies, and better solar capacity for telephones.

 llc: There are adequate data processing systems (e.g. computers, software,$ling
systems).
Average score: 3
Discussion:    On average, park managers felt that data processing systems were adequate,
 given the amount of data they were handling, and their information needs, although
 several mentioned that their wardens did not have the equipment they needed. Three of
 the park managers had sophisticated computers, fax machines, printers, email and web
 access,and other equipment. One (TNP) was noticeably weaker (the office computer
 was in storage until electricity was more reliable and accessible in the region). One park
 manager specifically identified GIS software, in order to better track existing data and to
 create meaningful maps of the park.

 1Id: PL4data are available and relatively recent (e.g. satellite imagery, aerial photos,
field studies).
Average score: I
Discussion:    Lack of data is another major systemic threat for all protected areas. Lack
of detailed maps (i.e. 1:50,000), and/or satellite images, meant that guards were often
unaware of the exact locations for specified management activities, and spent
considerable time trying to locate sites on the ground. Remarked one warden, "We just
go out there, following this path or that path, and hope it leads to where we are supposed
to go." More fundamentally, managers lack detailed data about the biodiversity within
their parks. While some data did exist (primarily community-based data in the form of
oral reports of wildlife sightings, and tiger survey data), the parks lacked detailed data
about the actual presenceor absenceof species and populations, the extent of quality of
critical habitat, the location of rare, threatened or endangered plant species, and species
interactions. Moreover, any existing data tended to focus almost exclusively on the



                                                                                           31

handful of charismatic mega-fauna (tiger. takin, red panda and black-necked crane).
While the national list of critically rare species includes several dozen species, data about
these species are almost completely absent.

1le: There is effective communication      with local communities regarding protected area
management.
Average score: 3.5
Discussion: Park managers saw communication with local communities as one of their
strengths. In the process of developing ICDP plans, each park had held extensive
participatory meetings and workshops with local community members.


            TRANSPORTATION             AND FACILITIES       (Questions 12a-12e)

                        Transportation      and facilities



                                                                         !QJD
                                                                           JSW
                                                                         OTNP
                                                                         0 BWS




12a: Means of transportation enable effective monitoring and other critical
management activities.
Average score: 4
Discussion:  On average, park managers felt that transportation means were adequate,
given that the vast majority of patrolling had to be done on foot becauseof the rugged
terrain. Vehicles were adequate for transportation between the capital and the parks.

12b: Equipment for field-level    data collection is adequate (e.g.field gear, GPS
monitors).
Average score: 2.5
Discussion:  Several park managers and staff mentioned the need for GPS monitors, as
well as GIS software to analyze data. They also felt that while their headquarters may be
fairly well equipped, their warden posts were not, and even less so for the park guards.
Remarked one warden, "What I'd really like is a field guide for identifying birds. I've
begun my own study on the relation between birds and conifer species, but I'm not really
sure of my ability to identify birds."




                                                                                           32

12~: Staff facilities are adequate (e.g. staff offices, research stations, field offices).
A verage score: 2.5
Discussion: Facilities varied from park to park, with the oldest park, JD, having
relatively better facilities.

12d: Maintenance and care of equipment is adequate to ensure long-term use.
Average score: 4.5
Discussion: Maintenance of equipment is a clear strength of the protected area system.
Managers receive a regular budget for maintenance costs, and most feel this budget is
sufficient for ensuring long-term use, especially of vehicles.

12e: Visitor facilities   (e.g. trails, signs, carn~~~gareas, visitor centers) are appropriate
to the level of visitor use.
A verage score: 3.5
Discussion:     All four park managers qualified their generally positive responses by
stating that the visitor facilities were adequate- for existing         levels of use. In one case,
there were no visitor facilities, but visitors were also nearly non-existent. Given the
strong likelihood of tourism increasing in the future, this may be an area for future
monitoring.

           MANAGEMENT              PLANNING         PRACTICES          (Questions 13a-13e)




                                                                                       f!YlJD
                                                                                         JSW
                                                                                       OTNP
                                                                                      0 BWS


                                               -

           mgmt.  plan   inventory    ICDP plan     threat     work plan   AVERAGE
                                                   analysis




13a: There is a comprehensive, relative!y recent written management plan.
Average score: 4
Discussion:    All four protected areashad comprehensive management plans. Two were
very recent (2002-2007); one was in the process of being updated (1997-2001), and one
had an I S-month pilot management plan. Although the park managers felt the
management plans were comprehensive (all had external support in creating the
management plans, from WWF, UNDP, and Danida). However, two park managers notes
that in their view, the management plans were very vague, and did not pay adequate
attention to the biodiversity resources within their parks.




                                                                                                   33

I3b: There is au zzp-to-dateresource inventory, izzcluding snaps of the area.
Average score: .75
Discussion:      Further highlighting question 11d (adequate data), this question scored very
low, with no park manager satisfied with the natural resource inventory within his park.
While all had an impressive list of speciesas an appendix to their management plan, this
was based on suspectedversus actual presenceand absenceof species. Even for the
handful of key species identified as conservation targets, there was no information about
actual populations, reproductive rates, critical habitats, resource needs, breeding
requirements, or impacts of poaching and other human activities. The lack of a
meaningful natural resource inventory is one of the fundamental and most pressing
weaknessesof the entire protected area system.

13~: An ICDP plan has been co~p~etedfo~ the protested area.
Average score: 5
Discussion:     All park managers saw the development and implementation of an ICDP
plan as an essential component of park management. Each had spent considerable time
and resources in developing their ICDP plans. Although none had actually been
implemented yet, all were scheduled to begin an implementation phase from July 2002.

13d: There is an analysis of and strategy for addressing, protected area threats and
pressures.
Average score: 2
Disczzssion: While some preliminary threats analyses existed (mostly for grazing), these
focused on steps to addressgrazing, but do not include an assessment of the impact on or
distribution of grazing. None of the parks had a systematic analysis of the full range of
threats.

13e: Annual work plans specify goals au targets to achieve management objectives.
Average score: 4
Discztssion: Overall. this question received a high score. One park manager reflected
that work plans for staff were developed on a monthly, rather than annual basis, and that
wardens did not have specific work plans.
                    u-
               MANAGEMENT                  DECISION            MAKING        (Questions 13f-13j)

                      Management                   Decision-Making          Practices




                                                                                            j OTNP
                                                                                            j OBWS



           leadership    transparent    collaboration    community     adaptive    AVERAGE
                           d-making                        involve.     mgmt.



                                                                                                      34

13fi There is clear leadership and strong teamwork among staff.
Average score: 4.5
Discassion:   Three park managers answered an unequivocal yes; one park manager noted
that there was room for improvement. In general, park managers, wardens and other staff
expresseda senseof teamwork, and mentioned their close camaraderie. This is
especially true for small teams in isolated conditions.

13g: Management decision-making is transparent.
Average score: 4.5
Discussion:   Park managers and staff felt that decision-making was transparent. One
warden noted "We meet monthly to discuss the next month's plans, and we make
decisions together."

1312:Protected area staff regularly collaborate with partners, local corn
other organizations.
Average score: 4
Discussion: Although collaboration was generally high (indeed, close collaboration with
WWF, RSPN and local communities was readily evident), park managers identified three
areasfor improvement: 1) better coordination with NCD Headquarters; 2) better
communication and collaboration with district officers; and 3) better coordination with
other protected areaswithin the country.

13i: Local communities participate in decisions that affect them.
Average score: 4.5
Discussion:   Park managers felt that local community participation was a strength,
particularly in identifying ICDP activities. One park manager expressed some hesitation:
"In the end, we still retain decision-making authority over issues that directly affect them,
like compensation for livestock depredation. And some things are hard to involve the
communities, like directives from NCD."

13j: Management planning continually incorporates and adapts to new ~ear~~~g*
A verage score: 4.5
Discussion: Although most of the park system itself is quite new (most of the parks are
less than a decade old), management planning has already been adaptive to new learning.

                  FINANCIAL            MANAGEMENT                 (Questions 14a-14e)


                                        Financial      management




                                                                                         / BJD

                                                                                         ; IMJSW

                                                                                         : OTNP

                                                                                         j DBWS



                  adequate    efficient   allocation   short-term   long-term   AVERAGE
                      $

I4a: There is adequatefunding to conduct all critical management activities.
Average score: 3
Discussion:    Ov~erall,existing funding is adequatefor the needs of the parks. One park
manager noted that additional funding was neededfor equipment and infrastructure.
However, three park managers quickly qualified their answers by noting that their
situation would change quickly as funding cycles came to an end. It should be noted that
this score does not necessarily reflect staff capacity to spend funding. In many cases,
park managers returned funds at the end of the fiscal year or request delays, becausethey
have been unable to spend their allocated budgets.

146: Financial   management practices enable efficient and effective protected area
management.
Average score: ..5
Discussion:    Of all the assessmentindicators, this one generatedthe most discussion; the
topic came up in nearly every conversation regarding park management. "We definitely
have a problem," remarked one park manager. "We have major delays in getting paid, up
to six months or more," commented another. In one case,a park manager described
having to drive two days (one way) to Thimphu in order to be sure his request for funding
was expedited. Such inefficiencies marked the financial management of parks, although
many of the factors leading to this inefficiency were beyond the control of PA managers
themselves.

There are several conditions that exacerbate financial management problems: 1) funders
have strict guidelines regarding reporting and releaseof finances, and are often viewed as
inflexible and dogmatic by park managers; 2) field projects often experience delays due
to factors outside of the park managers' control; 3) these delays mean that financial
reporting is also delayed, further aggravating the problem; 4) many district offices view
the parks as a source of income, and pressurepark managers to spend money on
unbudgeted activities; 5) only one park has an accountant; the others have centralized and
inefficient accounting procedures; 6) the path of funds from donor to park managers, and
the path of information from park manager to donor, is lengthy and circuitous, involving
as many as six or seven different stages,ministries and organizations; and 7) some park
managers, although they recognize the importance of reporting and financial
management, are too busy facing urgent crises becauseof staff shortages, to pay due
attention to financial issues.

Inefficient financial management has taken a heavy toll on park management - low
morale regarding funding, lengthy and frequent delays, projects half finished, and
frustrated donors arejust some of the outcomes. This indicator is second only to staff
shortages in causing ineffective park management.




                                                                                         36

14~: The allocation of expenses is appro riate to protected area priorities                and
objectives.
Average score: 3
Discussion: Allocation of expensesscored much higher than efficiency of financial
management. However, one park manager noted that donor priorities heavily influenced
financial and management priorities. Another noted that there were budget constraints
becauseof unrealistic expectations of multiple stakeholders.

14d: Short-term (l-5 years) funding      of the protected area is secure.
Average score:. 75
Discussion: As noted in question 14a(adequacy of funding), funding in the future, even
in the very near term, is uncertain. Only one park manager felt that his park had
relatively secure funding for the next several years (TNP is directly supported in a 5 year
grant from WWF).       The others faced an uncertain future as soon as early summer of
2002. One major donor (Danida) had plans to pull out of protected areas in general, and
potential grant renewal seemed tenuous at best.

14e: There is a p~ar~~or~o~g-te~rn~na~~~a~s~~stai~abi~i~
Average score: 0
Discussion: None of the parks had a plan for long-term financial sustainability.             This is
an areathat NCD is beginning to address; it has plans to develop long-term funding
strategies for park management within the next several years.

                                                      EVALUATION             (Questions 15a-15e)


                    Research,       monitoring        and evaluation




                                                                                    i @iJD

                                                                                    ,  JSW
                                                                                    j OTNP
                                                                                    j OBWS


                                                                        _-        d

        impacts      ecol        social    staff review       results     AVERAGE
       recorded    Research    research                   incorporated




15a: The impact of legal and illegal uses of the protected area are accurately monitored
and recorded.
Average score: .5
Discussion: Impacts of usesof the protected area are generally not monitored. Several
park managers noted that they thought it would be very useful to have a consistent format



                                                                                                    37

for monitoring, and felt that this was a service that NCD could provide. One park
manager lamented "We don't have nearly enough staff. we don't have a detailed map of
the park, no one knows how to do GIS analyses, and we simply don't have the skills
neededto do this kind of monitoring."

15b: Research on key ecological issues is consistent with the needs of the protected
area.
Average score: 1.75
Discussion: Although there have been some small scale research projects (e.g. on black-
necked cranes in BWS, on snow leopard, tiger and cordyceps in JD), there is no
systematic research program or protocol. Research needs are not identified, and key
ecological research skills are lacking.

1.5~:Research on key social issues is consistent with the needs of the protected area.
Average score: 3
Discussion:   Social research fared much better than ecological research. As part of the
ICDP development process, a socio-economic survey was conducted in all but one
protected area. Park managers felt these surveys were adequatefor their needs.
However, two managers identified the use of NTFPs as a major gap, especially given the
extent to which medicinal plants are harvested, and to which NTFPs registered as a future
threat.


1.5d:Staff performance and progress on targets are periodically reviewed.
Average score: 3
Discussion: Although this indicator scored fairly well, three park managers noted that
they were referring to annual "civil servant assessments," which they felt was inadequate
to their needs. Two park managers noted that they felt NCD could provide a common
approach to staff monitoring.   One remarked that monitoring on progress takes place
monthly. Another added that his staff was too overloaded to take on monitoring
responsibilities of other staff.

15e: The results of research and monitoring are routinely incorporated into
management planning.
Average score: 2.75
Discussion:   Park managers routinely attempt to integrate new information into planning.
However, they are limited by the quality and availability of data, particularly on
biodiversity-related issues.




                                                                                        38

                                         OUTPUTS


                                        OUTPUTS



                                                                                     BJD
3 i                                                                                     JSW
2                                                                                    OTNP
                                                                                     ClBWS
1 1

0 'i   u




 The graph above summarizes the management outputs of the past year, as viewed by park
 managers. Examples of specific outputs are noted below. FVhile these data are based on
 a simple self-assessment by park managers, they do reflect the broader trends from the
 management assessment. Specifically, strong outputs include community outreach, staff
 development (i.e. training), management planning, and ICDP planning. Weaker outputs
 are those areasrelated to a paucity of data, 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.


                                Examples of specific outputs

 9   Threat prevention and enforcement (1.75):
         Patrolling, apprension of poachers,community meetings on poaching


 l   Site restoration and mitigation efforts (2.25):
         Plantation in flood-prone areas,restoration of black-necked crane roosting sites


 l   Wildlife or habitat management (2):
         Wildlife surveys, black-necked crane analysis


 l   CommunitJ? outreach and education efforts (3.5):
         Environmental education with RSPN, high school program, videotape and
         calendars. Red Panda festival



                                                                                         39

 0 Visitor and tourism management (3.5):
       Establishment of camping grounds, identification of trails, beginning construction
       of visitor center, educational displays

0  ICDP-related efforts (2):
       Supplied seedlings for fodder plantation, replaced sheep killed by leopards,
       developed ICDP plans, conducted socio-economic surveys

   Management planning outputs (2.5):
l
       Management plan preparation, stakeholder meetings, boundary demarcation

w Staff monitoring and evaluation (2):
       Quarterly staff meetings, annual performance review

b  Staff support and development (3):
       Staff training, study tours, specific on-the-job training

   Research and monitoring (2.25):
l

       Experimental pasture burning, takin study, burd survey, medicinal plant study




                                                                                       40

EXTERNALREVIEW

This section includes issues that pertain to NCD as a whole, rather than simply each
individual park. In a series of one on one interviews, a variety of stakeholders provided
their perspectives on some of NCD's challenges and weaknesses. These include issues
relating to NCD's role, organization and performance as an organization. as well as
issues relating more broadly to NCD's relationship with local communities.

                         NCD's Role, Organization and Performance

Scope and Mandate

.   There are a range of views regarding NCD's scope and mandate. One group of
    stakeholders thought NCD neededto expand its mandate to look at much broader
    issues: "NCD has a mandate to look beyond parks, to expand, but their progress has
    been very, very slow. And they have too much to do now, especially with the transfer
    of territorial activities." "NCD should reorient their thinking - they should be
    thinking not only in terms of conservation within the parks, but of the broader
    environmental problems throughout the country."

0   Another group thought NCD should be more focused on park management, and try to
    consolidate progress in that department before expanding: "They need to get this
    (park management) under control before they take on anything else."

0   There was broad consensusthat NCD as it is currently      staffed and structured should
    not take on more than it is doing at this time.


NCD Organization      and Management

    The core NCD headquarter staff are faced with a variety of projects, including
    establishing, managing and monitoring the recently created biological corridors;
    coordinating the tiger conservation program; developing an anti-poaching program;
    creating a wild boar culling pilot project; and developing the second phase of the
    biodiversity conservation strategy and action plan. Furthermore, the staff are faced
    with a large number of administrative tasks: "We are bombarded daily with requests
    to develop informational booklets, to draft letters, to do very detailed administrative
    tasks. Everything is pretty much ad hoc; we do what we can."

    Several external stakeholders noted the frequency with which park managers are
    rotated; all mentioned one park that has seenfour managers in less than six years.
    "This seems to me like a structural problem within NCD, especially with not figuring
    out a planned, systematic training program."

    Several mentioned the apparent lack of coordination between NCD and park
    managers. As a result of this lack of coordination, park managers are viewed as



                                                                                           41

   developing plans that suit their own interests and priorities. with poor documentation
   and little continuity once a manager movers on.

0  Numerous stakeholders raised the issue of NCD's organization and task delineation:
   "I question whether they have clearly defined job responsibilities even written down.
   I constantly get the feeling that they are not really sure what they should be doing,
   and so they do this thing or that thing - whatever comes up next - instead of what
   they're really supposedto focus on."

e  Funders identified a lack of a focal contact person as problem. "We're never quite
   sure who we need to be talking to. And then when one person goes away, for a
   training or something, communication just sits on his desk until he comes back!
   NCD really needs to just pick one person who will carry the funding responsibility all
   the way through." Another donor adds "We'll discuss things with one person, but it
   stops there. Communication doesn't trickle down in that office."

e  Two vacant job posts, a plant ecologist and a biodiversity inventory specialist, have
   remained vacant at h'CD Headquarters. "Every time we are asked to do a
   biodiversity survey, we have to think of some ad hoc way we can do it, maybe send
   another park manager over there, or something," commented one staff member.

.  There is a lack of basic equipment at NCD Headquarters. "We don't have the basic
   things we need, things like sleeping bags, back packs, cameras, GPS monitors. We
   have to ask park managers if we can borrow their equipment whenever we go out into
   the field, and they don't always have it." There is also a severe shortage of space
   within NCD Headquarters. Someone is always being displaced here. If a park
   manager is here and wants to work, someone's going to have to give up his computer,
   desk and office. When we're full here, there's not enough space for everyone, and
   people don`t know what to do. Without a computer or a desk, how can you work?"

Backstopping: NCD `s Core Competency

0  The core NCD staff is comprised of highly dedicated, educated and skilled
   individuals. But many of them are recent graduates, with only limited field
   experience. "We're all new at what we're doing, even researching. There's no one to
   guide us. It would be great to have a link with a university, or with international
   NGOs. A place to throw around ideas and seehow other people have solved similar
   problems. We're supposed to be backstopping, but I don't feel confident that we can
   backstop. It's like the blind leading the blind."

0  One of NCD's main roles is "technical backstopping." In practice, however, NCD
   has had very little time to assessand develop the technical skills of park staff. When
   pressedto estimate the actual time spent in such activities, one NCD staff member
   said, "Wellt actually very little time. In fact, so far, none."




                                                                                         42

l   Several stakeholders noted the lack of technical backstopping: "NCD should be
    providing technical backstopping to the whole kingdom, but they're not doing that. I
    think we really need to upgrade the vision of what the whole department is really
    about."

Research

    There were numerous comments regarding the lack of research. One area was the
    lack of a common research framework: "The biggest need we have is for a common
    researchframework. Everyone's doing their own thing and there is no common
    platform for putting all of it together."

    Another research-related issue is data management. One research-related stakeholder
    noted that NCD lacked trained staff in information management systems. "NCD
    needs to develop systems for managing the information that they already have. They
   just don't have the skills in that area."

    Most commonly, stakeholders noted the inadequacy of ecological research, and the
    lack of a systematic natural resource inventory method or protocol.

    The National Biodiversity Centre is proposing a system called the Bhutan Integrated
    Biodiversity Information System (BIBIS).      This system would integrate data
    regarding forest resources, floral and fauna1diversity, microorganisms, medicinal
    plants and genetic resources(wild food relatives). Once in place, this system could
    be a strong data management partner for NCD.

    Another potential opportunity is the current tripartate memorandum of understanding
    between NCD, the Chicago Field Museum, and WWF. This partnership was viewed
    as an example of mutually-beneficial    collaboration that could be replicated with other
    research and academic institutions. `*With this partnership, our field staff actually
    learn surveying techniques; we actually get something out of this instead of just
    providing a researchopportunity."

Staffing


l  Numerous external stakeholders noted the lack of staff, especially field and technical
    staff. NRTI only produces 25 students per year; BFI only 35 (although there were
    plans to double BFI's outputs). Using ex-soldiers as guards (JDNP used 5 ex-guards
    to assist with anti-poaching along its northern border), and using students on a
    temporary basis to serve vacant posts were two ideas expressed by donors and park
    managers themselves.

o   One stakeholder, reflecting on NCD's staffing problems, had this to say: "NCD's
    biggest area of improvement is in human resource development. The park staff are
    skilled, but there's a lot of room for improvement. Human resource development is a
    problem at all levels throughout NCD. In terms of actual protection as such, that's



                                                                                           43

  okay. But in terms of doing biodiversity assessmentsand inventories, this is an area
  that will require a major effort, and we need to build the capacity of park staff to do
  this. We have to ask, at both NCD and park levels, why aren't they trained in
  biodiversity inventorying? We need to think structurally, to build biodiversity into
  NRTI and BFI curriculum."

. Several stakeholders questioned whether lack of staffing was an actual threat. Noted
  one, "I think a more important question is whether people are actually doing their
  jobs. Some people can handle a lot more work than they are doing. Others have too
  much already. Some parks could use half of the staff and still be effective if they
  were better organized. I think we have to ask first if existing staff has enough to do."

a Donors held mixed views regarding staff. Some recognize the need for increased
  staffing, and others feel that NCD must first become a tighter, more efficient
  organization. "NCD has gotten themselves into a tight staffing situation, with little
  maneuverability, since they depend so much on NRTI and BFI graduates. But if
  NCD feels the numbers are not enough, the solution is simply to expand the number
  of graduatesfrom those institutions. It's so simple, I don't see what the problem
  is. ."

e Another donor, however, felt that there should be no increase in staffing until NCD
  improves its internal management and organization. "NCD could do very well to have
  the Royal Institute of Management take a hard look at their organization,
  management and human resource development!"

. Still another remarked "`They are not understaffed, at least if you compare them will
  all the other divisions. They have all of the qualified staff they need - in fact, they
  have many times higher than what is needed. The problem is mismanagement."

e Two stakeholders expressedconcern regarding the depth of leadership within NCD,
  particularly at times when senior leadership was absent. "To put it bluntly, I'm very
  concerned about what's going to happen if the current director leaves. There's a huge
  gap between him and his staff. There's the potential for a leadership vacuum. There
  needsto be a mid-level manager ready to take his place."

. Two stakeholders expressedconcern and doubt regarding the ability of existing park
  staff to take over territorial activities.

0 The problems inherent in rotating staff were noted: "The civil service doesn't allow
  people to stay in a particular place for too long. They think this will lead to people
  being too relaxed, efficiency will decrease,and they will be more vulnerable to
  corruption. But with these sudden changes happening all the time, new park
  managersjust don't have enough knowledge about their park to do their job
  effectively."




                                                                                         44

*  Several stakeholders mentioned the need for an assistant managing director, as well
   as assistant park managers. Despite the heavy workload, key staff were often
   traveling, on study tour, and participating in trainings. Even when they are in their
   offices: managers are often overwhelmed with administrative tasks and are unable to
   focus on their strategic and oversight responsibilities. The responsibilities of an
   assistant director and of assistant park managers would be to assist with day to day
   managerial and administrative work, and to provide continuity in the absenceof key
   staff.


Financial munagement and Relationship with Donors

   Communication is one of the most important aspects of a donor/recipient relationship.
   E-Iowever,several donors felt that communication was inadequate with NCD, and that
   poor communication was the primary cause of funding delays. Two areasspecifically
   identified were slow reporting, and the use of funds for non-approved activities.
   Remarked one donor, "We are really very flexible, but we just need to know what is
   going on. Otherwise, we look bad to OUTdonors!"

   One donor mentioned that NCD was not as transparent as it could be with its
   collaborator, citing specifically the development of the vision and strategy document.

   Adequate funding itself does not appearto be a problem: "There is money out there.
   The problem is that NCD does not yet have the capacity to use it in an efficient and
   effective manner."

   Some donors felt that NCD was unclear regarding the start and end of funding cycles.
   as well as the formalities and procedures required for fund planning and
   disbursement. One donor mentioned that they had developed guidelines and a
   workbook, as well as hosted a workshop on donor requirements, but that no one from
   NCD had attended.

   Financial reports are viewed as being sporadic, and seldom addressing actual field
   progress.. "Once they receive the money from us, they stop reporting until they need
   more. We usually have no idea what's happening."

   Financial arrangements were also viewed as an area of concern: "The low score that
   individual park managers received on financial management, that's all becauseof
   factors outside of their control. It's becauseof structural problems between NCD and
   donors. The lengthiest delays are between the Ministry and Finance and the Ministry
   of Agriculture - delays of up to or even exceeding six months."

   Another donor remarked: "We need a new mechanism for transferring funds. Right
   now: every little request needsto go through this lengthy process. We could have a
   system where very small requests, say less than 100 thousand Nu, go directly from
   donor to recipient, medium transfers have a streamlined process and simply send a cc
   to the ministries, and only major transfers, say greater than one million Nu, go



                                                                                        45

    through this lengthy process. It shouldn't be this complicated, especially once the
    overall budget is approved."

 e  Still another remarked: "We need to think this (the flow of funding) through. There is
    a rush to decentralize everything, and most of the donors are making some noise
    about this problem (funding inefficiency).     But we need to think about the
    consequencesof decentralizing for park staff. The last thing we want to do is add to
    their workload when there is limited capacity to begin with."


                                Communities and conservation

 Underlying   Tension  between   People  and PurkJ

 o  There is a perceived underlying tension between the role of parks in sustaining rural
    communities, and their role in conserving biodiversity, a tension which is manifested
    in how different stakeholders view the parks. According to park staff, district officers
    and local communities often seeparks as a source of revenue and direct benefits. One
    park manager commented: "Park managers are always being asked, `What can you
    provide us?' If someone is sick, the park vehicles are expected to be available. If
    there is a celebration, the park is supposed to contribute to the costs. If livestock is
    killed, they are supposed to provide reimbursement. If schools need money, they are
    supposed to support those. There's no real understanding about what a park is: and
    what realistic benefits to the community might be."

 0  Similarly, one stakeholder remarked "The biggest area for improvement is a better
    understanding between park and territorial staff. Territorial staff have to understand
    the concept of a park, and its relationship with a community, and park managers have
    to understand how territorial activities interact with a park, and to better understand
    the needs of the community."

    This tension was apparent during interviews with stakeholders. One respondent
l

    remarked "NCD is far too focused on nature protection at the expense of local people
    - they really need to look at local communities ! They're hardly doing that at all right
    now!"    At the same time, another respondent from a different organization remarked
    "NCD is under a lot of pressure to bow to political pressure. They get so caught up
    with local politics, they often forget what their main job is - to protect biodiversity!"

Relationships   with  Communities

0   One stakeholder noted that in his experience, park managers do not work closely with
    the district offices, particularly in the development of management plans. "When a
    park managers is drafting a management plan, he should be at the same time trying to
    establish a relationship with the district administrator and with the community.    Some
    of these managersjust work independently."




                                                                                             46

.  Existing tensions regarding the role of the park are exacerbated by gaps, overlaps and
   inconsistencies between policies. "The biggest threat to all of our parks is the
   compromise we are making for rural development - for the people who are living
   within the parks. If we are not able to support rural people, they will be our biggest
   problem. They need pasture to graze their cattle, people need fuelwood and timber,
   bamboo, medicinal plans, and all of these resources fall within the core zone of the
   parks. But there is this conflict between the parks rules and the territory rules,
   especially with social issues relating to permits for timber, firewood, NTFPs:
   community forestland and grazing rights."


l  One park manager commented: "Our biggest challenge is not saving the tiger, it's
   working in harmony with the local people. People are the main custodian of the
   natural resource. How well we actually realize that - that's our own biggest
   challenge. We'll never be able to manage the protected areasin isolation, even if we
   become fully competent technically. We have a few partners, but local communities
   should be our most important partners. We can talk about staff shortages all we want,
   but our government will never fill all those positions. So, we have to fundamentally
   rethink how we go about doing conservation."


A Community-Based Model ofconservation

.  In part because there is no national NGO act, there is only one national environmental
  NGO, the Royal Society for the Protection of Nature (RSPN). Two stakeholders felt
   that a greater breadth and depth of NGOs would make for a more accountable and
   effective park system, would create innovative models of conservation, provide better
   mechanisms for collaboration with communities, and greater opportunities for
   partnerships between parks and NGOs.

0 A few park staff members felt that the park should better incorporate community
  members in its activities. For example, the role of village forest guards (risups) is to
  "be the eyes and ears of the park staff." In particular, they are responsible for alerting
  park staff of forest fire dangers, for mobilizing the community, and for reporting
  poaching activities to wardens. Some park staff felt that this role could be greatly
  expanded: "Risups should not be kept just to report the bad things that go on. We
  should also look at the positive things they can do, like report wildlife sightings."

0 RSPN is an important partner of the park system. With a network of 78 clubs
  nationwide, and 10 new clubs added each year, they have a strong relationship with
  local communities.    Their model of mobilizing communities to monitor water quality
  could be applied to citizen monitoring of wildlife.   WWF Nepal is exploring this
  model, and has recently developed a handbook for citizen monitoring of snow
  leopards. RSPN has also developed useful, non-technical field guides for plant and
  animal identification.




                                                                                          47

NCD has already set a precedent for using a community-based model for data
collection; the tiger survey data was basedin large part on data of tiger sightings
reported by villagers.

Several respondents mentioned that unemployed, recent high school graduates (and
dropouts) representedan enormous untapped human resource for the park,
particularly for jobs requiring simple, easily-transferred skills, such as patrolling,
reporting and simple data collection.

The `Conservation Area Program Committee" established in Phubjika could be
considered a model for involving communities in park management planning.
Comprised of representatives from various community sectors, this committee was
involved in creating the local ICDP plan.

Scouts represent another untapped human resource: "The biggest opportunity to fill
some of these vacant posts and to get the community involved is through scout
associations. This is a huge entity - almost every school kid is a scout, and many
scouts sustain their interest well beyond their school years. And this is a convenient
mechanism for coordinating communities and for training community members. We
should tap into this existing social system."

Clearly, decentralization is a dominant theme in government policy. However, it is
unclear how NCD plans to decentralize its own functions, and ifand how parks will
decentralize some of the park activities to local communities.


         NCD and the Development of Bhutm `s Protected Area System

            Figure 5.1: Constraints Facing NCD

                  I        CONSTRAINTS        ON NCD




NCD faces many constraints. Among these are staff shortages; the many threats and
pressuresfacing protected areas;the conflicting and often unrealistic expectations
regarding what NCD can and should do; the high level of administrative minutiae that
most senior level managers face; the young age and relative lack of experience of the


                                                                                       4x

  core NCD staff; the expectation that park staff will undertake a whole new set of
  territorial activities; existing structural and institutional gaps; and the country's high
  level of biological diversity. All of these factors are constraints on NCD's ability to
  be an effective agency (Figure 5.1).

rn Furthermore, the newness of Bhutan's protected area system creates its own set of
  challenges. There is a progression in the establishment and management of protected
  areas, including: 1) the development of a protected area system; 2) the
  operationalization of those areasand development of staff; 3) a thorough inventory
  and assessmentof biodiversity and cultural assets;4) development of management
  and planning systems for those assets;and 5) the realization of benefits from sound
  management (Figure 5.2)

        Figure 5.2: Progression of Park Establishment



            Phase  1: Develop  PA system            /
                 \

                      I  Phase   2: Operationalize          PAS,
                               staff   development.____-.-             :        NCD  15 oetwriee"  @mes  2 and   3,
                                                                               many   Of chaiienges  are cleated  b,
                                                                               tm  ira"SitiOP

                            \    ________-                .- -.-.--
                                                                *-      - -~~
                                   Phase     3: Inventory          and assessment
                                 ;    of cultural--.~---
                                                     and     biological    assets
                                                                             --..   -
                                       \




0 Currently, NCD is between the second and third phase. Many of the challenges
  facing NCD are created by the need to move from operationalizing parks (providing
  staff and infrastructure, demarcating boundaries), toward a more intensive inventory
  and assessmentof the biological diversity within the parks. NCD should resist efforts
  to seek immediate benefits of sustainable management until adequate protection
  measures are in place.

o Only five of the parks are operational; four exist virtually in name only. In addition,
  w-hile the biological corridors have been legally designated, there have been scant
  attempts at inventorying, assessingand managing these corridors, aside from the
  initial tiger surveys.

0 Even though thefark system is only partially operational, and NCD has yet to fully
  embark on the 3' phase of operationalization, the park system still representsan
  enormous opportunity for biodiversity conservation. The system as a whole faces
  little threat from widescale land use conversion (i.e. to housing, development or
  agriculture); is precluded from industrial logging by legislative fiat, and is relatively
  intact. Existing threats, compared with other parks in the region, are relatively minor.



                                                                                                                        49

  The challenge to NCD is to ensure that these threats remain limited, while at the same
  time systematically advancing its scientific understanding and management capacity
  of the resources within existing parks.

. The scheduling of any of the remaining four protected areas, and even the biological
  corridors, is likely to be less important to Bhutan's protected area system as a whole
  than NCD's capacity for thorough inventory, biodiversity analysis and solid
  management footing in existing parks.


l At this point in the establishment of the park system, advances in data and
  management-related skills for NCD and park staff are likely to provide a greater
  benefit to the system as a whole, particularly if NCD is better equipped to transfer
  skills from park manager to park manager, than would the establishment of a new
  park.

. However, if such benefits are to be realized, NCD must first improve its
  organizational structure and communication systems.




                                                                                        50

                 SECTION      6: IMPACT    OF EXTERNAL         FINANCIKG

Introduction

This section explores the likely impact of past financing on Bhutan's protected area
system from 1997 to 2002, and provides some direction for future funding. This section
begins with a set of assumptions regarding pressures,threats and management
effectiveness. Based on these assumptions, on the current financial situation, and on the
assessmentfindings, this section depicts three different financial scenarios. The section
concludes with a set of key indicators for monitoring future management effectiveness.

General Assumptions

The matrix below provides a series of general assumptions regarding past pressures,
future threats, and management effectiveness.

     .  The first of these assumptions is that there is a natural progression, or set of steps,
        in park establishment (see Figure 5.1). This process generally begins with a) the
        gazettement of a park; b) intensive infrastructure building, human resource
        development, community outreach and preliminary management planning; c)
        thorough data collection, research and inventorying; d) sound planning,
        management, and monitoring of resources; and finally e) realization of benefits
        through sustainable management.

     .  The second assumption is that there are often underlying causesto threats,
        pressuresand management effectiveness.


    l   The third assumption is that certain variables (e.g. funding, staff) often have a
        direct correlation with certain outcomes (e.g. reduced poaching).


    l   The fourth assumption is that other variables and outcomes may have only an
        indirect correlation, or even no correlation at all.

    0   The fifth assumption is that the future projections and past assessmentsmade by
        park managers are more or less accurate. Exceptions to this assumption are noted.

    +   The sixth assumption is that there are often prerequisites, or limiting factors, for
        improving management practices.

    .   The final assumption is that there are often hidden factors that may limit or
        enhance management effectiveness.

These assumptions are further described in the matrix on the following page.

                            FIGURE 6.I : ASSUMPTIOKS                                                  USED IN DEVELOPING                                        SCENARIOS
                                          PAST         PRESSURES                   AND                                             MANAGEMENT                           EFFECTIVENESS
                                               FUTURE              THREATS
I                     .     That      certain      past    pressures       are   linked      to the                    .     That     major      management               strengths       and     weaknesses         in
 %                        difticulties         inherent      in establishing           a new     park                     the    past   are    linked      to the      progression          from     park
              i
 `02                      system        (e.g.    grazing      can    be   linked     to   problems         in             establishment            to   sound      park      management
         AL=  E
                          establishing           park    zones).                                                       *     That     existing       strengths        will     continue        to be strengths         in
    8     a.2
    Lcazj             l     That      better     overall     data     collection       and                                the    future
   02                     management              systems       will    enable      better    detection
    e        zm                                                                                                        *     That     areas     related      to   data     will   improve         (e.g.   natural
 a            Q           and    monitoring           of  threats                                                         resource        inventory.         threats       analysis.       research      and
                                                                                                                          monitoring)           as park       management             matures
                      .     That      certain      pressures       are    caused      by   complex                     l     That     conflicting         park     expectations           between        park    staff

   F                     socio-economic                factors.     and    can    only    be addressed                    and     communities            have      led    to  some      weaknesses           in
 `5,      %               by equally          complex        strategies       (e.g.    trapping       and                 management              (e.g.   law     enforcement)
 `i:g                     killing      prevention)                                                                i    *     That     management              disruptions         caused        by   an  intensive
 $2                  .      That      underlying          contributing         factors     to   certain           /       training       program        for    park     staff    will    be    less   disruptive       in
 3                       threats       (e.g.    high    value     and     strong     demand)         will                 the    future
                         remain         constant       or  increase
                                                        presence       and    strong                                   .     That     improved          management              systems        at the    NCD      level
          2     'I   *      That      staff    field

 g       .$              communication                efforts     have     limited      the    impact      of             will    lead    to   a direct      improvement             across       all  parks    in key

   2s                    certain       pressures        (e.g.   local     poaching)                                       areas     (e.g.    monitoring,           communication                systems)

 EE                  '      That     there      will   be a direct        and    positive       correlation           l      That     training      and    human          resource       development           directly
                         between          increased        field   staff    and    decreased                      :       lead    to   increased        skills     and     work     performance
          z
--                .--.  *aching            and     NTFPs                                                         c-.--.
                     .      That     some       pressures       may      require      a systematic                    l      That     funding       is only       indirectly        correlated        with    some
          %              policy       approach         (e.g.   cross-boundary             poaching,                       processes,         such     as zoning         policies      and     threat     analyses.
 `;      .P              road      construction),           rather    than    a simple        increase       in       .      Similarly,        increased         funding        may      not    necessarily
 .g      ;;f             funding         or staff.
 uz                                                                                                                       increase       staffing,      given       the    constraints         on   hiring     new
                            That      financial       support       is only     indirectly       related      to          staff
 5:                  l

          8              the    prevention          of  other     threats,     such     as grazing.
             ~           road      construction
                     .      That     the    actual     impact       is higher      than     recorded        for       *      That    most      predictions          by    park    managers          are   accurate
                         certain       pressures,        including        poaching.        grazing       and              (e.g.    that   equipment           shortages         are  only       temporary)
            -WI
 &+2z                    NTFP        collection.        because        of  a lack      of  monitoring
   ccJ.2      o          svstems
                           i
   i,T&              .      That     the    estimated        low     future     impacts       from
   8     .*   3          firewood          collection,       timber       harvesting,        tjshing      and
 q$                      tseri!pangshing             cultivation        are   accurate

                    l       That     ecotourism           and   bioprospecting             will   not    be
                         threats      within       the   next    j years
                    .       That     a certain       amount        of   dialogue       with                           .     That      inadequate         systems          for  collecting         data   and

 .Z8                     communities             is a prerequisite           for                                          preventing         threats      in the      past    have     limited       park
                         reducing/preventing                 certain      pressures       (e.g.    local                  effectiveness           (e.g.   in law       enforcement,            threat    prevention)
 .il
                         poaching)                                                                                    .     That     innovative          structures         and    mechanisms            (e.g.
   $                .
   2                        That     effective        threat    detection.        assessment          and                 community-based                 mechanisms)              can    improve        data-related

   2                     monitoring            will   require      systematic         structures.                         performance            in  the    future
 cb                      mechanisms,             and    support       at NCD        level                           .       That     the    absence       of    key    equipment            and   training      will
                                                                                                                          prevent       effective       data-related           performance
                            That     the    impact      of   some      threats     will    be greater                l      That     the    addition       of   "territorial        activities"        has   placed,
                         over      time    (e.g.    grazing,      NTFPs,         poaching).         even     if           and    will    continue        to   place.      undue      pressure        on  park    staff
   gr
UO                       threats      remain        constant,       because       of   a diminished                       at all    levels

ET                       capacity        to   recover                                                                .      That     the    establishment            of    new    parks      is very     labor     and
21G                                                                                                                       capital-intensive;            and     that    the    operationalizing            of  two
                                                                                                                          new     parks     will    burden        staff     at park     and     NCD      levels




                                                                                                                                                                                                              52

      Current Firzancial Situation

            The following two charts illustrate NCD's major sources of donors, the amount
      l

            funded for each park, and major activities. NCD as a whole received approximately
            $10.7 million over the past five years. The anticipated budget for the next five years
            is approximately $13.2 million, with additional funds if Phibsoo is to become
           operational.

Iprotected            I                             FUNDING HISTORY           -- 1997-2002                                 I

                       Source/donor: WWF            Amount funded: US $ 1Sm        / Major activities funded:
  Royal   Manas        Bhutan                                                      j infrastructure development. capacity
                                                                                     building, office and field equipment,
                                                                                    conducting surveys, ICDPs
                       Source/donor: BTF            Amount funded: US $              Major activities funded:
                       (from July 1993 - June       0.094m                         i infrastructure development
                       199.5')
  Jigme   Singye       Sourceidonor: Dutch          Amount funded: US $ 2.4m        Major activities funded:
  Wangchuck            Gov't                                                        infrastructure development, capacity
 National    Park                                                                   building, provision of office and field
                                                                                    equipment, technical assistance,
                                                                                    integrated conservation and
                                                                                    development programs, conducting
                                                                                    surveys
                       Source/donor:                Amount funded: US $ 2.5tt1      Major activities funded: same as
  Jigme    Dorji       UNDPiGEF                                                     activities reflected under JSUIVP
                       Source/donor: BTF            Amount funded: US $         I Major activities funded: Human
                                                    0.05Sm                      / resource development
                       Sourcefdonor: WWF                                        ~ Support in developing management
                       Bhutan                                                   I elan
                       Source/donor: DANIDA         Amount funded: US $ 2.0m        Major activities funded: same as for
    Bomdeling                                                                       JSWP
                       Source/donor: BTF            Amount funded: US $ 0.017       Major activities funded: Human
                                                                                / resource develooment
                       Source/donor: WWF            Amount funded: Not sure     / Major activities funded: surveys,
 Thrumsingla           Bhutan                       estimated at US $0.250 m    ' technical assistance, Purchase of
                                                                                    office and field equipment's
                       Source/donor: BTF            Amount funded: US $             Major activities funded:
     Phibsoo                                        0.054m                          infrastructure development, surveys
                       Sourceldonor: WWF            Amount funded: estimate at      Major activities funded: same as
                       Bhutan                       USS0.150m                       above

     Sakteng           Source/donor: None           Amount funded:   None           Major activities funded:   None
                     I                             ,                              I

 Khaling/Neoli     1 Source/donor:     None     / Amount funded: None           / Major activities funded:     None        I
     Toot-se           Source/donor:   None         Amount funded: None             Major activities funded: None
                       Sourceldonor: BTF            Amount funded: US $ I .7m       Major activities funded: human
                                                                                    resource development, equipment
       NCD             * *Source/donor:  A II                                       Major activities funded: human
                       donors who support the   j                                   resource development, equipment,
                       parks also contribute to /                                   technical assistant, maintenance of
                       strengthening NCD        I                                   property, communication

                             eco-tourism      development,    research    &
                                   itoring,  information     management,
                                   P, technical   assistance,   inventorying




                                                uman    resource




DANIDA       (until 2003)    country    travel,  maintenance     of equipment
                             and structures,     human    resource
                             development,      environmental      education,
                             equipment     purchase,    ICDPs,   technical
                             assistance    recruitment     invent0



WWF      Bhutan




MacArthur     foundation          e up with    a mgt.   plan,
through    the WWF




support   the parks also     assistant,   communication
contribute   to the
strengthening     of the

Introduction    to Financial Scenarios

    Below are three hypothetical financial scenarios over the past five years: 1) had
 l
    funding been reduced by 40%; 2) had funding been reduced by 20 to 40%; and 3) had
    funding been increased by 25%.

    The method for estimating the three scenarios involved first outlining a set of specific
l
    assumptions. Then, the questionnaire responsesfor each protected area were
    reviewed, and, if appropriate, adjusted, in light of the assumptions of the hypothetical
    scenarios. It should be noted that in some cases,a constant score may not fully reflect
    changes in park management; an initial score of 0 would remain at 0, even though the
    situation may have worsened, and an initial score of 5 may have improved, even
    though the score would remain at 5.

e   While this section attempts to provide answers to a set of "what if' financial
    scenarios, it is not a true counterfactual in that the lack of data (either from other
    parks, or from areassurrounding parks) precludes a comprehensive analysis with
    parks that have received more and less funds.


                 Scenario 1: If funding had been severely reduced (40%)

This scenario examines what might have occurred had external financing over the past
five years been reduced by 40%. This section first lists some assumptions regarding the
effect of these budget cuts, then describes the threats and pressuresthat would likely have
occurred under this scenario, examines the impact of such cuts on the management
effectiveness of protected areas,and finally, speculates on the possible impact on NCD.

Assumptions for Scenario 1

    A cut of 40 percent or more is equivalent to approximately the full funding of two
    parks, or of a severe system-wide cut of 40% to the entire system. This scenario
    assumesNCD funding would be significantly reduced, but would be marginally
    functional.
    This scenarios assumesthat the Royal Government of Bhutan would not have
    significantly increased its support to NCD. The accuracy of this assumption is
    uncertain, given the government's unwavering commitment to environmental
    protection and conservation.
    There would have been a continued emphasis on management planning for individual
    protected areas.
    There would have been fewer staff at all park and NCD levels, but shortageswould
    have been even more acute at field levels.
    There would have been fewer resources available for ICDP activities, particularly
    including community outreach and education efforts.
    Capacity building, including training and technical assistance,would have been
    severely reduced.



                                                                                           55

 l  Infrastructure development. including buildings, equipment, and vehicles, would have
    been moderately reduced.

 l  There would have been weaker managerial structures. systems and processesat all
    levels NCD and park levels.
 0  NCD activities would be greatly redirected away from strategic, long-term planning,
    toward more day-to-day administrative tasks, fundraising and direct support to a
    weakened park system.

Pressures and Threats for Scenario I

 The following section describes the threats and pressures likely to exist today, had
 funding been reduced by 40 percent. The numbers following each bullet point indicate
the likely increase in the average impact from each past pressure (the 1" number), and
each future threat (the 2"d number). (See also Figure 6.1 at the end of this section).

    Poaching would have been a much higher pressurein the past, and would likely be a
    much higher threat in the future. Poaching of high value species, such as musk deer
    and black bear, would have continued unabated, possibly leading to negative and
    long-term consequencesto local species populations. Killing of wildlife becauseof
    crop and livestock depredation (e.g. tiger and wild dog) would have also increased in
    the absenceof adequatecommunication and mitigation measures with local
    communities. (+43,t59)
    Grazing would have been a higher pressure in the past, especially in JSW and TNP.
    The ability to prevent, offset and manage grazing (e.g. livestock intensification,
    pasture management) would also have been greatly reduced, leading to a higher
    degree of threat from grazing in the future. (+30, t5 1)
    NTFP harvesting would likely have beena higher pressure in the past, and face a
    higher future threat, particularly for high value, high demand species, such as
    mushrooms and medicinal plants. (+33, +49)
    Timber harvesting pressuresin the past would likely have increased slightly, but
    future threats would like be much higher, becauseof an inability to take over
    territorial activities, and reduced community outreach. (+4,+ 17)
    Past pressuresand future threats of fishing, fires, road construction, tseri/pangshing
    cultivation and firewood collection would likely have remained constant. (0,O)

Management Effectiveness for Past Scenario I

The following section describes the likely impact of significantly reduced funding on
management effectiveness. Numbers after each point indicate the likely change to the
overall existing score, out of a possible total score of 100. (See also Figure 6.2 at the end
of this section).


l   Performance on park objectives would moderately decline, including areasrelated to
    community support for park objectives, and the development of specific management
    objectives. (- 12)




                                                                                            56

   Legal status and security would have declined, following the likely poor performance
   in land tenure disputes, boundary demarcation, law enforcement and community
   conflict resolution. (-24)
   PA site design and planning would have remained constant, as this is largely a macro-
   policy issue. (0)
   Staffing would have declined sharply with reductions in all areas, including skills,
   organization, support and working conditions. The existing low number of staff
   would have seen even greater reductions. (-32)
   Communication and information would have declined dramatically, given that
   effective communication is a result of adequateequipment, organization and
   communication structures. (-28)
   Transportation and facilities would have seena moderate decline, but these would
   most likely have been limited to one or two parks. (-12)
   Management planning practices would have stayed more or less constant, as it is
   likely that any financial support would have prioritized the development of
   management plans and ICDP plans. (-4)
   Management decision-making practices, however, would have shown a greater
   decline, following a decline in staff skills, communication equipment, and support for
   community collaboration. (-22)
   Financial management practices would have shown a decline, primarily becauseof a
   lack of funds, and a poorer allocation of existing funds, given the ad hoc management
   likely to have occurred. (-16)
   Research, monitoring and evaluation would have moderately declined, especially in
   socio-economic surveys and staff reviews. (-10)


iVCD Performance    for Scenario  I

Greatly reduced funding would have likely had the following impact on NCD:

   There would have been inadequate time, staff or resources to handle anything but
   park planning. Projects such as biological corridors, the tiger conservation program,
   and anti-poaching program would have been eliminated or greatly reduced.
   There would have been a higher degree of crisis mode, ad-hoc management.
   NCD would have likely been unable to adequately perform strategic activities, such
   as the Biodiversity Action Plan, or the Vision and Strategy Document, nor would
   NCD staff have had the capacity to conduct such activities in the future.
   NCD staff would likely have spent more time directly supporting park management,
   including more time at individual parks. This would have further exacerbated their
   ability to provide strategic support.
   NCD would have had a lower ability to provide technical backstopping in the future,
   given staff shortages, reduced training, and inadequate managerial structures.
   NCD would also have likely been unprepared to develop effective mechanisms and
   structures for improving park management over the next five years.
   NCD as a whole, including the entire park system, would still be in the first and
   second stagesof park development. With the exception of JD, parks would be only



                                                                                        57

    marginally operationalized, with inadequate staffing, equipment, infrastructure and
    management systems. Two if not more parks would exist in name only.
+   NCD as a whole would likely have been unprepared to move toward the next stage in
    protected area management: a full and accurate inventory of the resources within the
    park system.

Summary of Scenario 1
A reduction in funding by greater than 40 percent would likely have:

.   Exacerbated the impact of existing pressuresand threats, including poaching, grazing,
    and NTFPs
.   Exacerbated management weaknesses,including financial management,
    communication, legal status and security
.   Eroded management strengths, including staffing, and management decision-making
    practices
.   Limited NCD's ability to provide strategic leadership in the past, and develop
    effective mechanism for park improvement in the future
0   Prevented the operationalizing of one or even two parks




Scenario 2: Iffunding   had been moderately reduced (`20-4096)

This scenario examines what might have occurred had external financing over the past
five years been reduced by between 20 to 40 percent.

Assumptions for Scenario 2

    These cuts would be the equivalent of eliminating support to an entire park and
    modest cuts in support to NCD, or widespread cuts of 20 to 40 percent across the
    entire park system.
    Certain activities would have received higher priority than others. Some activities
    (e.g. staff development) would have been greatly reduced or eliminated, while others
    would have remained constant (e.g. park planning).
    There would have been a continued emphasis on management planning.
    There would have been a moderate staff reduction at all levels.
    There would have been partial support for ICDP-related activities, but
    communication with communities would have been somewhat reduced.
    Capacity-building activities would have been somewhat reduced.
    Infrastructure development, including buildings, equipment and vehicles would have
    been slightly reduced.
    There would have been weaker managerial structures, systems and processesat all
    NCD and park levels.
    NCD would have had to have focused more on fund-raising activities and direct park
    support.




                                                                                        58

 Pressures and Threats for Scenario 2

 The following section describes the threats and pressureslikely to exist today, had
 funding been reduced by 20 to 40 percent. The numbers following each activity indicate
 the likely increase in the average impact from each past pressure (the Is' number), and
 each future threat (the 2"d number). (See also Figure 6.1 at the end of this section).


 l   Poaching (+lO, i-S>, grazing (+6,+18) and NTFP (+l 1,+16) collection would have
     seenin increase in past pressuresbecauseof a reduced field presence and limited
    community outreach. However, future threats from these activities would have
    increased, as staff capacity to addressthese threats would have been greatly
    diminished in the future, and diminished community participation in ICDPs would
    have likely reduced community support.
 .  Timber harvesting, fishing, fires, road construction, tserilpangshing cultivation and
    firewood collection would all have likely remained constant.

Management Effectiveness for Scenario 2

The following section describes the likely impact of significantly reduced funding on
management effectiveness. Numbers after each point indicate the likely change to the
overall existing score (out of a possible of 100). (See also Figure 6.2 at the end of this
section).


e   Performance on park objectives would have declined slightly, mostly in the area of
    community support. (-6)
*   Legal status and security would have declined in land tenure disputes, boundary
    demarcation and community conflicts. (-12)
.   PA site design and planning would have remained constant. (0)
.   Staffing would have declined, with lower performance in skills and organization,
    primarily because of heavy workloads and inefficient management likely from this
    level of understaffing. (- 18)

l   Communication and information would have declined moderately, mostly in the area
    of communication with local communities. (- 16)

.   Transportation and facilities would have seenonly minor declines. (-6)

*   Management planning practices would have stayed the same. (0)

.   Management decision-making practices would have declined. primarily in areas
    relating to community involvement. (- 10)

.   Financial management practices would decline slightly, with inadequate funding in
    one or more parks. (-6)

*   Research, monitoring and evaluation would have declined slightly. (-4)

NCD Performance for Scenario 2

A reduction of funding would have likely had many of the same impacts as under
Scenario 2: crisis management, emphasis on park support over strategic activities,
inability to provide technical backstopping, and lack of effective structures and



                                                                                           59

 mechanisms for the park system as a whole. In addition, it is likely that at least one
 major program, such as the tiger conservation program or the anti-poaching program
 would not have been undertaken, and that at least one, if not more, parks would have
 operated in name only. Under this scenario, the park system would have the appearance
 of an operationalized system (equipment, vehicles, offices), but would be operating more
or less as a shell, with little depth of management, community collaboration or park
protection. There would be significant gaps, and NCD would have a reduced capacity to
 move toward fully operationalizing the park system, as well as toward a sounder
 management basis.

Summary for Scenario 2

 A reduction in funding by 20 to 40 percent would likely have a similar effect as Scenario
 1 - exacerbated existing threats and management weaknesses and eroded management
 strengths - with less precipitous drops in legal status and security, staffing?
 communication and financial management than under Scenario 2. One park would likely
not have been operational. In addition, NCD would have had a limited ability to provide
 strategic leadership to the system as a whole.




               Scenario 3: If funding had been moderately increased (25%)

 This scenario examines what might have occurred had external financing over the past
 five years been increased by 25 percent.

Assumptions for Scenario 3

 0   Increased funding would have gone toward operationalizing a new park (Phibsoo,
     Sakteng, Khaling/Neoli     or Toorse), an increase to existing parks, and increased
     support to NCD
0    Staffing would have increased only moderately, because of constraints on hiring new
     staff
0    ICDP activities would have been fully funded and implemented, and even more
     support given for community education and outreach

l    There would have been fully adequateequipment, infrastructure and vehicles
0    Critical staffing at NCD would have been in place

l    There would have been more emphasis on better performance in data collection,
     resource inventories and wildlife surveys


Pressures anci Threats for Scenario 3

The following section describes the threats and pressureslikely to exist today, had
funding been increased by 25 percent. The numbers following each activity indicate the
likely increase in the average impact from each past pressure (the 1" number), and each



                                                                                           60

 future threat (the 2'ldnumber). (See also the chart on pressures and threats at the end of
 this section).

 0   Poaching pressuresin the past would have only slightly declined, given the modest
     increases in field staff. However, it is likely that poaching threats in the future would
     be significantly reduced, given broader community support from ICDP activities and
     better mechanisms for detecting, and therefore preventing, poaching. (-3,-8)
 *   Similarly, grazing pressures in the past would likely not have been seen a significant
     decrease,but future threats would likely be reduced by the implementation of ICDP
     activities for reducing grazing pressures(e.g. livestock intensification). (O,-20)
 0   NTFPs, timber harvesting, fishing: fires, road construction, tseri/pangshing
     cultivation and firewood collection would likely have remained constant. (0,O)

Management Effectiveness for Scenario 3

 The following section describes the likely impact of significantly reduced funding on
 management effectiveness. Numbers after each point indicate the likely change to the
 overall existing score (out of a possible of 100).

 .   Performance on park objectives would have seen a minor increase from greater
     community support to objectives. (+8)
 .   Legal status and security would seea signiticant improvement in community-related
     areas,including land tenure disputes, law enforcement, and conflict resolution. (+22)
 *   PA site design and planning would have increased slightly, with improved zoning.
     (+6)
 .   Staffing would have improved slightly. with improved number of staff. (1-6)
 .   Communication and information would have improved significantly, particularly
     adequatecommunication means and PA data availability. (+18)
.    Transportation and facilities would see a slight improvement, with faster scheduling
     of staff facilities and adequateequipment. (+8)
.    Management planning practices would seea slight increase from improved
     inventories and threat analyses. (+5)
.    Management decision-making practices would have slightly increased, particularly in
     collaboration with partners and community involvement. (+4)
.    Financial management practices would improve becausefunding would be adequate
     and there would likely be provisions for short term funding. (+9)

l    Research, monitoring and evaluation would seeimproved performance on ecological
     research and recording the impacts of protected areas.(+7)

NCD Performance for Scenario 3

A modest increase in funding would have likely had the following impact on NCD:

o    NCD would have had adequatetime and resources to begin to implement the
     biological corridors project, as well as taken on strategic research areas, such as the




                                                                                             61

  wild boar culling project, however human resource constraints would still likely have
  limited the full implementation of these projects.
0 NCD would likely have been able to develop more system-wide tools (e.g. for staff
  monitoring), and to focus more on technical backstopping.
o NCD would have more fully operationalized existing parks, and would be better
  positioned to efficiently begin operation in new parks, as well as move to a more
  thorough data collection for existing parks.

Summary of Scenario 3

A modest increase in funding would likely have:

e Reduced the overall impact, including past pressuresand future threats, from critical
  activities, including poaching, grazing, and N'TFPs.
. Mitigated some management weaknesses,inciuding financial management,
  communication, and legal status and security.
e Improved existing strengths, including planning practices and decision-making
  practices.
0 Enabled NCD to have been more prepared to take the park system to a deeper level of
  data collection, inventory and sustainable management.

l Established at least one additional park.




                                                                                       62

           Summary of Past Pressures and Future Threats for Four Scenarios

The charts below depict past pressuresand future threats for each of the four scenarios
(existing, 40% reduction in funding, 2040% reduction, and 25% increase in funding).

Of the various pressuresand threats, poaching, grazing and NTFP collection are the most
sensitive to funding. Significant cuts are likely to lead to significantly increased impacts
from these activities, both from past pressuresand from future threats. Increased funding
is likely to yield only modest decreasesin poaching and grazing, but will lead to a more
robust system capable of preventing threats in the future.


             Figure 6.1: Past PressuresUnder Four Different Financial Scenarios

                                       Past  Pressures

          100


           80


           60


           40
                                                                                 20-40%     less
           20 '                                                                025%    mm-e


            Oi




            Figure 6.2: Future Threats Under Four Different Financial Scenarios


                                        Future   Threats
          100

           80

           60                                                                  B existing

                                                                                 40%    less

           40                                                                  020   - 4O%less

                                                                               0 25% more

           20




                                                                                                  63

               Summary of Management Effectiveness for Four Scenarios

The charts below depict past pressuresand future threats for each of the four scenarios
(existing, 40% reduction in funding, 20-40% reduction, and 25% increase in funding).

Although overall averagesappearnot to have changed dramatically under different
scenarios, this is largely becauseof continuous high performance in objectives, site
design and management decision-making.        If these variables were not considered, there
would be much more dramatic differences between funding scenarios. Furthermore, this
chart does not reflect likely changes in not operationalizing one or more parks.

Areas most sensitive to funding include status and security, staffing, and communication.
Areas likely to remain relatively constant include protected area design, management
practices, and research and monitoring.   Improvements across all areasare interrelated,
and involve increased staff number and capacity, improved communication within the PA
system and with communities, and improved management systems at NCD. If fully
funded, these factors will combine to createa synergistic effect that compounds success.
If severely underfunded, these factors negatively combine to aggravate efforts at PA
improvement.

Figure 6.3: Comparison of Management Effectiveness under Four Funding Scenarios


            Comparison of management  effectiveness
    100  -.I -                                      under various fundingI. scenarios
                                                                             ..,


    801      n                                                                    !!!IExisting
                                                                               i     40%     less
                                                                               j     20 - 40%    less
                                                                               /j 025%       more




                                                                                                     64

                                      Donor   Influence

   As shown earlier in this section, NCD and the park system are supported by several
 l

   external funders, including WWF. the Dutch Government, UNDP. DANIDA,            and the
   Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation. While each donor provides an
   important contribution - indeed, donors directly contribute to the operationalizing of
   individual parks - two donors provide unique benefits beyond their financial
   contributions.

 . WWF Bhutan provides funding to RMNP, TNP and Phibsoo, but also brings an array
   of intangible benefits to the park system, including: 1) key skills such as management
   planning, GIS analysis, wildlife surveying, environmental education and landscape-
   level conservation approaches;2) links with the WWF international network and
   other international conservation organizations; and 3) advocacy and communication
   with a wide variety of governments, governmental agencies, funders and policy
   makers. WWF Bhutan has also been a critical partner in many of the park activities
   to date, including the tiger conservation program, ICDP planning, anti-poaching
   efforts and environmental education. The strong outputs in community outreach and
   management planning, as well as strong scores on ICDP planning, are closely linked
   with WWF's expertise and support.

   BTF also provides critical support, but in a different manner (see also Appendix F for
l
   a summary of BTF grants). Most donors focus on tangible outcomes - buildings,
   equipment, inventories and management plans, while BTF focuses on building human
   capital. While it provides direct financial support to 4 parks (averaging $50,000 each
   in the past five years), BTF also provides critical support to NCD in several ways.
   First, it provides the bulk of direct funding for staffing and human resource
   development at the system wide level, upon which an effective system is based.
   Second, BTF can provide critical bridging funds, both for NCD and for individual
   parks. This potential for bridging funding, even if it is never tapped, enables park
   managers and NCD to undertake longer-term planning than the often short-term
   planning cycles of individual donors. Third, BTF has been instrumental in
   influencing favorable macro-policy guidelines, such as influencing the
   representativenessof the PA system. Fourth, BTF has indirectly supported the parks
   system by funding such programs as wild pig management, ecology of Bhutan Takin,
   and environmental education.

   Despite the financial reserve provided by BTF, the park system as a whole is still
l

   largely subject to the vagaries of individual donors with limited time frames.

   In the future, NCD might consider establishing two funding policies: 1) that donors
l
   more explicitly include support to NCD as part of their funding to individual parks;
   and 2) that all donations include a small contribution to a general fund that could be
   used to bridge funding gaps to any one protected area, and reduce donor dependency
   on for any one park.




                                                                                         65

                                 Looking Toward the Future

     Given Bhutan's tremendous conservation opportunities, its impressive design of its
    protected area system, and its unwavering governmental commitment to resource
    conservation, it is likely that the park system will continue to attract the interest and
    contributions of international donors.

    NCD's funding challeges include 1) creating mechanisms that lessen the direct
    dependenceof any one park on a single donor; 2) improving donor relations; 3)
    strengthening financial management practices; and 4) gradually develop mechanisms
    (e.g. ecotourism) that can help provide long-term financial stability.

    Increased funding, alone, however, will not be enough to see significant
    improvements in the protected areasystem. At a minimum, three areas must first be
    addressed.

    First, the level of staffing must be adequateto the threats and management needsof
    the parks, Increased number of staffing at field levels is critical for adequatethreat
    detection and prevention. Strategic positions (e.g. park manager assistants) will
    enable smoother functioning and higher performance across many levels.

    Second, data-related skills (biological inventories, assessments,data analysis) must be
    improved acrossNCD and within parks if the park system as a whole is to move
    toward a more solid management footing.

    Third, NCD must improve its organizational capacity to be able to support the entire
    system. The need for improved systems (e.g. in monitoring, planning, management,
    communication) will become more acute as more parks become operationalized.

    If these three areasare not improved, it is likely that adequate or even significant
    increases in future funding will realize only modest gains in park performance.


                            Key Indicators for Future Monitoring

The following are a set of key indicators for monitoring performance of NCD and the
park system over the next five years (either via self or external monitoring).    These
indicators highlight the current threats and management weaknesses, and are critical steps
for long term effective management of the PA system.

Threat Management: Development of systems for detecting, monitoring, preventing and
        restoring the effects of a variety of threats, but most specifically poaching, grazing
        and NTFPs. These systems would be implemented system-wide, with NCD
        taking the lead on developing and disseminating tools and techniques.




                                                                                            66

Human/wildi~@e conflicts:    Local communities, particularly village leaders and district
        officers: would have a clearer senseof the meaning, potential costs and realistic
        benefits of a protected area. Local communities would be partners with NCD and
        park staff in reducing human/wildlife conflicts. Effective measures to offset the
        community costs of conservation (i.e. livestock predation) would be in place.

Data Management:       Improved performance in all data-related indicators, including: full
        natural resource inventories for all operational parks; an effective research
        program, targeted at threats to biodiversity; specific management objectives
        clearly related to biodiversity assets;an inventory of NTFPs and their uses;and
        effective social and ecological monitoring systems in place.

Financial Management:       Improved financial management systems in place, including a
        reduced reliance on any one external donor, efficient financial management
        practices, improved donor relations, and steps toward long-term financial
        sustainability.

Communication:      Effective communication systems across all park and NCD levels, but
        with particular emphasis on communication among park managers, and between
        field levels and park offices. NCD would have developed and strengthened
        communication systems across all parks, and would have created internal and
        external information networks.

Staff Monitoring   and Support: There would be a well developed, strategic and
        streamlined training system for ensuring that all new staff receive adequate
        training, and existing staff receive appropriate, need-basedtraining. NCD would
        have developed systematic monitoring and reporting mechanisms that would lead
       to useful evaluations and feedback regarding staff performance.

Innovative Models: NCD would adopt, as appropriate, innovative models and
       community-based mechanisms to improve key services, including data collection,
       threat detection and prevention, and wildlife monitoring.

NCD Organizational Development: NCD would have undergone a thorough
       organizational analysis. A tighter and more focused set of core competencies,
       with greater stakeholder consensus,would lead to better working relationships as
       well as a more appropriate structure for service delivery.




                                                                                          67

                           SECTION     7: RECOMMENDATIONS

 This section includes recommendations regarding I) existing and potential threats:
 including grazing, poaching, road construction, NTFP collection, tires, ecotourism,
 bioprospecting and global climate change; 2) major management weaknesses; and 3)
 general recommendations for NCD as a whole; and 4) funding recommendations.

 Some of these recommendations involve policy revisions or development, others involve
 changes in program design or implementation.      Some could be implemented unilaterally,
 others would depend on new or existing partnerships. Some are relatively easy to
 implement, involving a simple shift in thinking or political will, others are likely to
 require substantial human and financial resources.

 These recommendations are intended to provide NCD and other interested stakeholders
 with some specific ideas for improving the management effectiveness of Bhutan's
 protected area system.

 Threat detection, prevention and mitigation


l    Involve local communities in the review of grazing policies, including grazing in core
     areas.


l    Develop a grazing mitigation pilot program.

e    Develop simple tools for assessingand monitoring the impacts of grazing. Such a
     assessmenttool might look at pH levels, species composition, soil compaction and
     erosion, and existence of exotic species. It could also include visual tools for
     assessingdegreesof degradation. These tools can not only help in assessing the
     impact of grazing, but also in achieving consensusamong stakeholders regarding the
     degree of impact.


l    Prioritize grazing-related ICDP support and implementation, such as livestock
     improvement, improved pasture management, and fodder plantations.


l    Prioritize and fully fund programs that are likely to reduce wildlife killing by local
     communities (e.g. reimbursment for crop damage and livestock depredation;
     environmental education).

0    Develop pilot projects for restoring degraded land as feasible and appropriate.

.    Identify and prioritize areaswithin parks that face heavy pressure and/or future
     threats from grazing.

.    Develop more effective mechanisms for detecting and preventing poaching activities
     (e.g. community involvement of "risups," monitoring of local markets, hiring




                                                                                            68

    adequatenumber of field level staff, transboundary agreements with India and China,
    more effective anti-poaching strategies).

  0 Determine the impact of poaching and killing on target species, including musk deer,
    black bear, cordyceps, blood and alpine pheasant,wild boar, tiger, leopard and wild
    dogs.

    Gain a better understanding of interrelations between prey and predator species,
  l
    including wild boar and wild dog; and between domestic cattle and tigers, leopards
    and other carnivores.

 .  Reduce the impact of road widening in Thrumsingla National Park, by using more
    environmentally friendly road widening practices.

    Develop a transportation alternative to the planned bypasses, leaving TNP's core area
 l
    intact.

    Explore mechanisms to assessand reduce impacts of permanent road workers.
 l




    Better understand the degree of NTFP harvesting within parks, and the likely impact
 l

    on harvested species.

    Develop pilot project/s for developing sustainable management guidelines and
 l
    marketing program for one or more high-value NTFP species. Potential domestic
    partners include the National Institute of Traditional Medicine and the Department of
    Research and Development Services; potential international partners could include
    WWF UK and Rainforest Alliance, both of whom are establishing programs in the
    sustainable harvest and marketing of medicinal plants.

    Investigate the ecological impact of long-term fire suppression in fire-dependent
l
    ecosystems (e.g. Chir Pine forests). Similarly, investigate the ecological implications
    for bark beetle suppression.

.   Develop a pilot project to explore possible ecological and social benefits of controlled
    burning (e.g. lemongrass cultivation, improved grazing), and/or of management
    practices that mimic fire disturbance.

    Develop a strategy for addressing ecotourism aimed specifically for the park system.
l

    Such a strategy would complement the recently published national ecotourism
    strategy (published in collaboration with WWF Bhutan), but would explore in greater
    depth the implications and opportunities for Bhutan's park system.

    Develop a set of ecotourism guidelines for park managers within each park. Specific
l

    issues could include 1) infrastructure development (trails, camp sites, latrines); 2)
    waste management; 3) hiker education; 4) partnerships with local communities; and




                                                                                          69

   5) marketing and financing strategies. Some guidelines developed by Pan Parks
   (:\ S?I\ ~uI!J`~:I!+ (v;) might be useful to consider.

*  Establish baseline data (and if possible determine the historic ranges) for natural
   features, resourcesand species that are likely to be sensitive to global climate change.
   These may include glaciers, ice fields, high altitude lakes and forests, and ecosystems
   at the northern and southern extremes of their ranges. Develop a system for
   monitoring changes regularly (e.g. every five years).


l  Explore mechanisms to safeguard against biopiracy, including the full legal
   protection of genetic resources,particularly of medicinal plants and wild food
   relatives, as well as protection of intellectual property rights, such as traditional
   knowledge of plant properties. Ensure that such mechanisms are in place before the
   establishment of projects aimed at the management and marketing of such resources.

Improving Management Effectiveness


l  Develop a systematic protocol for developing specific objectives in all park
   management plans. These objectives should be directly related to the biodiversity
   assetswithin each park. At a minimum, these management objectives should include
   the population and distribution of key plant and animal species, the location of their
   critical resources and habitat, and an analysis of issues that may affect their
   populations in the future. Ideally, key species will include more than the charismatic
   megafauna; they would include a broader range of threatened and endangered plant
   and animal species, as well as strategically chosen indicator species.


l  Improve law enforcement, primarily! through an increased presence of field level
   staff. These staff may be temporary or permanent, part time or full time, professional
   or community-based. Explore possibility of improving relationships with existing
   law enforcement, and of hiring ex-army staff for patrolling.


l  Create consistent zoning policies and practices across the entire protected area
   system. Develop a common but flexible approach to park zonation, involving local
   communities at the earliest possible stages. Identify critical areaswithin the core
   zone. Better define the purpose, use and meaning of "buffer zone" and "core zone."

*  Explore ways to immediately increase field level staff, particularly at times of the
   year and in locations where threats (i.e. poaching) are heaviest. Explore ways to
   reduce the bottlenecks created by NRTI and BFI. Create terms of reference that
   require the full transfer of skills by external consultants. Create a strategy for a
   smooth handover of "territorial" activities. Consider creating an assistant position for
   both the NCD director, as well as for park managers.


l  Ensure that there are adequatecommunication means, mechanisms and structures at
   all levels, including between NCD and park managers, among park managers

   themselves, between park managers and their wardens and vice versa, wardens with
   their guards, and guards with other guards.


 l Provide all park managers with 1:50,000 aerial photos of their parks, as well as GPS
   units and GIS training (such photos exist for all parks, but have not been distributed).
   Provide a focused training for park staff on the uses of GPS data and GIS analyses. A
   possible partner is the WWF Bhutan Programme, which has already conducted such a
   training program to WWF Nepal. Additional data-collection equipment would
   include basic gear such as field guides for plants and animals, field glasses, and
   notebooks.

 . Undertake a major program initiative, either individually or in collaboration with
   other agencies or NGOs, to develop a thorough natural resource inventory of the park
   system. To the extent possible, these inventories should catalogue the full extent of
   biological diversity. NCD, including its headquarter and field staff, is not likely to
   have the human resources necessaryto adequately conduct such inventories in the
   near future. Therefore, NCD should consider exploring innovative and creative
   means for conducting these inventories, including adopting a community-based
   model for data collection; creating new partnerships with academic and research
   institutions; and strengthening existing partnerships with groups such as RSPN,
   Chicago Field Museum, and WWF Bhutan.


l  Similarly, each park should have a thorough inventory of NTFPs, including the type,
   distribution, use and status of the major products.


l  NCD should develop a system wide protocol for developing threats analyses. Each
   park manager should routinely analyze the full range of threats, including an analysis
   of the causes,an assessmentof the impacts of each threat on the park resources, a
   program for mitigating and preventing future threats, and, if appropriate, a program
   for restoring degraded resources. Such a protocol could include simple tools and
   guidelines for assessingthreats common to all protected areas.


l  Improve communication with funders, especially in regards to their funding
   requirements. Improve the timeliness and adequacy of reporting. Improve financial
   management at park levels, especially budgeting and expenditures. In collaboration
   with the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Finance and with donors, explore
   mechanisms for a more streamlined process of fund disbursement.

.  Identify short-term sources of funding for parks whose funding ends in 2002 and
   2003.


l  Develop a long-term financial plan for park financing, in partnership with key
   national and international stakeholders.




                                                                                         71

  Implement a system wide monitoring program for monitoring legal and illegal uses of
  the protected areas. NCD could develop a consistent format and protocol for
  formatting, along with guidance for park managers.

  Develop a focused, threats-basedresearchprogram. Research projects should be
  relevant to the needsof the park managers, as well as easy to implement, interpret and
  replicate. Results should be sharedsystem wide. NCD should also explore
  mechanisms for providing park managers and staff with greater access to research
  results from the broader park and research communities (e.g. accessto scientific and
  practitioner journals, web discussion groups). NCD should also explore partnerships
  with both domestic and international researchinstitutions, rather than undertake
  substantial research projects itself.

                          Additional Recommendations for NCD

  Seek clarity and consensusamong stakeholders on NCD's mandate and scope.
  Preliminary data from this assessmentsuggest that stakeholders, while recognizing
  the need and ultimate desire for NCD to expand its scope, feel that park consolidation
  and improvement of management effectiveness is the most important focus at this
  stage.

  Undertake an organizational analysis of NCD. This analysis should assist NCD with
  identifying its core competencies, and should include an assessment and, if necessary?
  modification of, NCD's internal structures, management processes,and job
  descriptions.

  As part of an organizational analysis. NCD should evaluate the needs of its own staff,
  as well as those of park staff. It should develop a tailored, strategic training program
  that matches these needs, rather than relying on ad hoc, opportunistic trainings.

  Preliminary data from this assessmentsuggest that one of NCD's core competencies
  should be the creation of systems, templates and models that can be used in all parks.
  These system wide tools include management planning guidelines, natural resource
  inventory procedures, threat assessmenttools, robust communication mechanisms and
  structures at all levels, monitoring and supervision formats, and a research protocol or
  framework.


l Preliminary data from this assessmentalso suggest that 1) the addition of assistant
  staff, especially for the NCD director and for park managers, would help easesome of
  the staffing difficulties; 2) a focal contact person for all funding procedures is likely
  to help with funding difficulties; and 3) since the NCD core staff almost all have
  technical backgrounds, the addition of communication and process-oriented staff may
  help in the transfer of technical skills.

. NCD should consider adopting a community-based model for the delivery of some of
  its services. Such a model could help create consensuson the multiple roles of



                                                                                           72

  protected areas,easestaffing shortfalls, provide critical data for monitoring and threat
  prevention, and could increase community participation in and acceptance of.
  management activities.

. NCD should improve its overall communication systems and mechanisms with a
  variety of internal and external stakeholders, but most importantly with donors, key
  partners, district officers, communities and park managers.




                                                                                       73

LIST OF ACRONYMS      USED

BFI        Bhutan Forestry Institute
BWS        Bomdeling Wildlife Sanctuary
DANIDA     Danish International Development Agency
GIS        Geographic Information System
GPS        Global Positioning System
ICDP       Integrated Conservation Development Plan
JD         Jigme Dorji National Park
JSW        Jigme Sangye Wanchuk National Park (formerly Black Mountain)
NCD        Nature Conservation Division of Bhutan
NGO        Non-governmental organization
NRTI       Natural Resources Training Institute
NTFP       Non-timber forest products
PA         Protected area
RSPN       Royal Society for the Protection of Nature
TNP        Thrumsingla National Park
UNDP       United Nations Development Program
WWF        World Wildlife Fund (also Worldwide Fund for Nature outside of US)




                                                                              74

                   LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS           CONSULTED

  Mrs. Kunzang Chimm, Program Officer, Sustainable Development Secretariat
  Mrs. Sonam Choden. Nature Conservation Divison (NCD)
  Mr. Echay Darjee, Project Officer, WWF Bhutan Programme
  h4rs. Sangay Dem, National Biodiversity Centre
  Mr. Tashi Dorji, Park Manager, Thrumsingla National Park
  Mr. Tenzing Dorji, Assistant Resident Representative, United Nations Development
  Programme
  Mr. Kuenzang Dorji, Warden, Jigme Sangye Wanchuk National Park
  Mr. K.B. Gurung, Warden, Jigme Sangye Wanchuk National Park
  Mr. Kinlay Gyeltshen, Nature Conservation Divison (NCD)
  Mr. Kinzang, Warden, Phubjika Valley, Jigme Sangye WranchukNational Park
  Mrs. Medon, National Biodiversity Centre
  Dr. Kinzang Namgay, Country Representative, WWF Bhutan Programme
  Mr. Phuntso Namgyel, Program Coordinator, Department of Research and
  Development Services
. Mr. Ugen Namgyel, ICDP Officer Jigme Sangye Wanchuk National Park
. Mr. Tobgay S. Namgyal: Director, Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental
  Conservation
  Mr. Raling Ngawang, Nature Conservation Divison (NCD)
  Mr. Phuntso, construction laborer, Thrumsingla National Park
  Mrs. Rebecca Pradhan, Royal Society for the Protection of Nature
  Mr. D.S. Rai, Park Manager, Jigme Sangye Wanchuk National Park
  Mr. Sithar, Park Guard, Jigme Sangye Wanchuk National Park
  Mrs. Austa Tamang, National Biodiversity Centre
  Mr. Chadho Tenzin, Senior Program Officer, WWF Bhutan Programme
  Mr. Karma Tenzing, Nature Conservation Divison (NCD)
  Mr. Ugyen Thinlay, Director, Department of Forestry Services, Ministry of
  Agriculture
  Dr. R. Thinlay, Researcher,Department of Research and Development Services
  Mr. Jigme Tobgyel, Royal Society for the Protection of Nature
  Mr. Chado Tsering, Park Manager, Bomdiling Wildlife Sanctuary
  Mr. Kado Tsering, District Forestry Officer
  Dr. Ugyen Tsewhang, Director, National Biodiversity Centre
  Mr. Karma Tshering, Head, Management Planning and ICDP Section, NCD
  Mr. Nima Tshering, Dzongda, Bumthang
  Mr. Tshewang R. Wangchuk, Park Manager, Jigme Dorji National Park
  Dr. Sangay Wangchuk, Joint Director, Nature Conservation Division, Department of
  Forestry Services, Ministry of Agriculture (NCD)
  Mr. Mincha Wangdi, Royal Society for the Protection of Nature
  Mr. Pema Wangyel, Program Officer, Sustainable Development Secretariat
  Mrs. Deky Yonten, Nature Conservation Divison (NCD)




                                                                                  75

                                                 TERIMS OF REFERENCE:
             Assessment of management effectiveness of protected areas in Bhutan

 Background
Bhutan      has designated     over    26 percent     of the country       as protected     areas in addition     to 9 percent    declared    as
biological     corridors.    The     present    protected     areas system       is an outcome        of the   revision    of the protected
areas,     which     was    undertaken        in   1993,     The     selection     of  the   areas    was    based    on    the   "ecological
representation"       from   the country's       ecosystem      ranging     from   the sub-tropical     (150   meters   above    sea level)   to
alpine    (over   700   meters).     Upon    full  gazzettment        of these    protected    areas   management        was introduced       at
varying     levels   of   intensity,    and    in paced     stages.    Presently     from    the total    of 9 protected      areas   5 are   in
operation     with   management         plans    in place     while   management         plans  for 4 smaller      protected    areas will    be
formulated      in due course.


Since   the introduction       of scientific     management         in these protected      areas, no nation-wide        impact   assessment
had    been   made.     Therefore      a self-assessment         was done       for  the first  time    for Jigme    Dorji    National    Park
(JDNP),      Black    Mountain        National     Park    (BMNP),       Thrumshingla         National     Park  (TNP),     and   Bomdiling
Wildlife     Sanctuary     (BWS)      in 2001.     Largely      the Nature     Conservation       Division    conducted      the assessment
based    on the format       developed      by the IUCN         on evaluating       effectiveness     - a framework        for  assessing    the
management        of the protected       areas. The assessment           covered    issues on the context,       planning,    input,  process,
output,    and impact/outcome          of the protected       areas.

Objectives
.       To assess the overall         management        effectiveness      of the operational      protected   areas of Bhutan;       and
.       To   identify    the   strengths,    weaknesses,         threats,   opportunities     that   may    hinder   or  support    improved
        protected    areas management.

Tasks
l       Review      the process       and  methodology/design            of the self-assessment           conducted    for   JDNP,     BMNP.
        TNP,    and BWS.

l       Conduct     an external      evaluation    on the effectiveness         of the protected     areas management.
*       Conduct      a presentation      at a workshop        on the analysis       of the self-assessment       conducted      vis-a-vis   the
        external    assessment.

Expected results
Report     on management        effectiveness      of protected      areas in Bhutan.

Duration     of program
3 1" March     to I jfh April   2002

3 Is' March                          AM:         Arrival
1" April                             Discussion     with    NCDiWWF          staff
2-7 April                            Field  trip
8-9 April                            Meeting     with   officials
I OthApril                           Preparation     for the Workshop
I I th April                         Workshop
121h April                           Depart



Working         arrangement
l           The consultant       will  be under     direct    supervision     of the Joint   Director,    NCD.
.           The    Head     (Management          Planning       and    ICDP     section),    NCD      will   be  the   counterpart      to  the
            consultant     who    will  be directly     responsible     for coordinating      meetings      and field  visits.
.           The consultant       will  work     under   the contractual       arrangements      provided    by WWF.
.           All  reports   will   be the property      of WWFINCD.



                                                                                                                                            76

                    COMPARATIVE             ANALYSIS        OF ELEMENTS             FROM
      NCD'S       INTERNAL          ASSESSMEIVT       AND     WWF'S       RAPID       ASSESSMENT

                                                 CONTEXT
                   NCD                                                    WWF      RAPM
Overall   Significance                                   ~Riological    significance
    l    Endangered     and threatened    species (4a-c) I      l   Globally    threatened    ecosystem
    l    Endemic     species (4e)                               0   Globally    rare, threatened,   endangered
    l    Unique    habitat (4j)                                 0   Regionally     rare, threatened,  endangered
    0    Ecological    services (5i)                            l   High biodiversity
    0    Special cultural    significance  (5a-j)               l   High endemism
                                                                l   Critical   landscape function
Threats                                                         l   MVP of key species
    0    Direct threats - types (7a-e)                   I      0   Exemplary      and intact ecosystem
    *    Indirect   threats - types (7a-e)                      l   Contributes     to representativeness
                                                                0   High quality     habitat
Opportunities
    l    Demographic                                        Social significance
    l    Economic                                               l   Economic      opportunities   to community
    l   Technical                                               0   Sustainable     development     opportunities
    l    institutional                                          l   High subsistence       use
    l    Social                                                 l   Religious    or spiritual
    l   Cultural                                                *   Aesthetic
                                                                l   Socio-economic        species
Vulnerability                                                   l   Value for education       or research
    l    Legal status (2a&b)                                    0   Recreation    value
    e    Boundary     demarcation     (2~)                      0   Ecosystem      services
    l    Species viability   (4g)                               0   Local dependency
    0   Current    condition   (4h)
    l    Risks (8a-j; 9a-e                                 Threats
                                                                l   Type of threat
                                                                0   Likelihood     of future threat
                                                         I      l   Range, Impact       and Permanence
                                                         //
                                                         jt Local contributing      factors

                                                         1      l   Difficult   to monitor
                                                                0   Pressure to exploit
                                                                l   Bribery    and corruption
                                                                0   Civil unrest
                                                                0   Cultural    conflicts
                                                                l   High resource value
                                                                l   Easily accessible
                                                                l   High demand        in trade
                                                                l   Economic      pressures
                                                                l   Difficult   to recruit staff

                                                         1Regional    influences
                                                                l   Natural    catastrophes
                                                                l   Climate    change
                                                                0   Air pollution
                                                                l   Invasive    species
                                                                l   Hydrology      impacted    by adjoining   land




                                                                                                               77

                                              PLANNING
----               NCD                                                WWF       RAPM
Vision                                           ~Objectives
     *   Clear objective    (1 a-b)                     0   Objective    = conservation     of bdvy
     0    Long-term    goal (la)                        l   Clearly articulates     objectives
     *   Transparency     of vision (I d-e)      /I     0   Consistent    with plan
                                                 !I     l   Employees      understand
Decision   making    process                     I      l   Communities       understand
     l    Survey of biodiversity    (15e)        I

     l    Social survey (15e)                    ~Legal   status and security

     l   Coherence    between    plans (1 c)     ~      l   Legal long term protection

                                                        l   No unsettled     disputes
Protected   area design                          I      0   Adequate     boundary     demarcation
     l   Zoning   within   park                         0   Effective   law enforcement
     l   Viability  for key species              I      0   Adequate     funding
     0   Size
                                                 ~PA site design     and planning
Management       plan design                                Layout   optimizes     cons. of bdvy
     0   Consistency    with vision (lc)         1      :   Surrounding      land use compatible
     l   Clear objectives    (1 b)                      l   Siting consistent    with objectives
     l   Monitoring    plan ( I5a-e)                    l   Adequate     size
                                                        0   Linked   via corridor

                                               INPUTS

                   NCD                                      WWF      JUPM        -~
Funding                                            Staff

     l   Adequacy                                       l   Adequacy
    0    Source                                         l   Adequate     skills

     l   Sustainability                                 l   Clear job organization

                                                        l   Staff support
Human     resources                                     0   Employment        conditions
     l   Staff

     l   Staff skills                            ! Transportation     and Equipment

     l   Staff training                                 *   Adequate     transportation

                                                        l   Adequate     equipment
Equipment     and infrastructure                        0   Staff facilities
                                                 I
     l   Vehicles                                       l   Maintenance
     l   Field equipment                                l   Visitor  facilities
     l   Road infrastructure

     l   Buildings

Application   of resources
     l   Budget   allocation

     l   Partners and external




                                                                                                      78

                                                   PROCESS

                     NCD                                         WWF     RAPM
 Internal    management                                 Communication      and information

       l    Leadership,    teamwork                         0   Effective   communication
       0    Internal  communication                         0   Adequate    means

       l    Transparency     of decisions                   l   Adequate    data processing

       l    Staff workload                                  l   Available   data

       l    Reporting                                       l   Communication      with local

       l    Review of workplan                                  communities

       l    Financial  accounting
                                                       Management       planning
       l   Context    analysis
                                                            l   Comprehensive      plan
 Institutional    development                             *     Recent inventory

       l    Development      of capacity                    l   Threats analysis

       l   Collaboration                                    l   Specific goals

       l   External communication        and                l   Management      adaptive learning
           networking
                                                       Research   and monitoring
      l    Availability    of information

                                                            l   Record of human uses
 PA Management                                              l   Clear research needs

      l    Enforcement                                      l   Review    of progress
                                                          .
      l    Biodiversity    monitoring                           Results incorporated

      l    Biodiversity    research                       0     Research on key issues adequate

 [CDPs

      l    Conflict   resolution
      *    Planning    of new ICDPs

      l    Communi       ' PRAs

                                                   OUTPUTS
                     NCD                                         WWF     RAPM
Product/service       delivery                         .  Management       practices
                                                       .
      l    Volume     of work outputs                     Fulfillment    of workplan
      .    #of   ICDPs                                 l  Restoration    program
                                                      .   Prevention    program
      l    Measures of physical outputs
                                                      .   Education    and outreach
Achievement        of workplan                        .   Financial    management

      l    Actual vs. planned

      l    Actual vs. planned expenditure

      l    Extent of management        plan implem.

Opportunity-based          outputs
.     Unplanned     outputs

l     Emerging     opportunities
0     New partners
.     Replication    of pilot projects




                                                                                                     79


                                                                   REVISED                  QUESTIONNAHW                              FOR NCD               BHUTAN               ASSESSMEN?

L   Background                                                                                                 A. 6) Specific      PA Objectives:                                                              A. 7) Critical   management        activities

   1)  Name   of protected      area

   2) Date  established

   3) Size of protected      area

   4) Name   of respondent                                                                                    I                                                                                               I                                                      I

   5) Annual  park   budget                                                                                   I                                                                                               I                                                      I
   5) Date  survey   completed                                                                                I                                                                                               I                                                     I


                                                                                                                                          CONTEXT

1. PA STATUS
Ym/rm/nn u                                                          1
                                                                                                                                                                                                               NOTES

0    0    0     0    o    a)   The  PA contains      the full range      ond     distribution      of plant   diversity.

0    0    0     0    o    b)   The plant    cover    within   the PA is consistent         with   historic   norms.

0    0    0      0   o    c)  Natural     disturbance      regimes    (e.g.    fires)  ore    maintained       within   the   PA.

0    0    0      0   o    d)   Exotic   invasive    species    ore  absent      from    the   PA.

0    0    0      0   o    e)   The structural     diversity    within   the   PA (e.g.     seral   diversity,    vertical   structure)   is consistent   with  historic   norms.

0    cl   0      0   o    f)  The PA contains       the full    range    and    distribution     of animal      diversity.

0    0    0      0   o    g)   There   ore    minimum      viable   populations        of key    species     within   the  PA.

0    0    Cl     0   o    h)   There   is sufficient   high-quality      critical   habitat     to sustain    minimum      viable    populations    of key    species.

0    0    0      0   o    i)  Natural    processes     and    species    functioning       (e.g.   migration,     feeding     and   breeding)    ore  maintained       within  the PA.

0    0    0      0   o    i)  The surrounding       oreo     (e.g.  buffer,    corridor     areas)     contributes     to the conservation      of biodiversity      within  the PA.



2.  PRESSURES      - Poaching

    0  is   0   is not      a pressure                                a. In the post       5 yews,       this activity    has:               The overoll     impact    of this pressure over  the past 5 years   has been:

    Notes  (species   affected,    etc.):                                o    Increased       sharply                                        b. Ranqe                                   c. ImJpJg                       d. Permanence
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             -____--

                                                                         o    Increased       slightly                                         o Throughout      (250%)                   0  Severe   impact              0   Permanent     (> 100    years)

                                                                         o     Remained        constant                                        o  Widespread         (1550%)              o  High  impact                 0   Long  term   (50-l   00    years)

                                                                         o    Decreased         slightly                                       o   Scattered    (5-l   5%)                o  Moderate    impact           o   Medium    term    (1 O-50    years)

                                                                         o    Decreased         sharply                                        o   Loculised   (<5%)                      o  Mild  impact                 o   Short  term  (< 10 years)



  . PRESSURES       - Grazing                                        I

                                                                                                                                             The overall     impact    of this pressure over  the past 5 years   has been:

    Notes  (species   affected,    etc.):                                o     Increased      sharply                                        b. be                                      c. ImJzlgr                      d. Permanence
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ~~--__

                                                                         o     Increased      slightly                                         o Throughout      (>50%)                   0  Severe   impact               0   Permanent    (> 100    years)

                                                                                                                                               o   Widespread        (15-50%)             o  High  impact                  0   Long term   (50-l   00    years)

                                                                                                                                               o   Scattered    (5.15%)                   o  Moderate    impact            o  Medium    term    (1 O-50    years)

                                                                                                                                               o   Localised   (<5%)                      o  Mild  impact                  o   Short term  (~10    years)

2.  PRESSURES     - Illegal   fishing

    0  is  0   is not      cl pressure         o. In the post    5 yeas,    this activity has:    The overall   impact   of this pressure over  the  past 5 years  has been:

   Notes  (species   affected,      etc.):        o    Increased  sharply                         b. Ranae                                c. UcJ                         d. Permanence

                                                  o    Increased  slightly                         o Throughout    (>50%)                   0  Severe    impact            0  Permanent    (> 100    years)

                                                  o    Remained    constant                        o   Widespread      (15.50%)             o  High   impact               0  Long term    (50-l   00 years)

                                                  o    Decreased    slightly                       o   Scattered  (5-15%)                   o  Moderate     impact         o  Medium    term   (1 O-50   years)

                                                  o    Decreased    sharply                        o   Localised  (~5%)                     o  Mild  impact                o  Short term   (< 10 years)

                                                                                              I
 I. PRESSURES-Timber            felling

    0  is  0   is not      Q pressure            . In the post   5 yews,    this activity has:    The overall   impact   of this pressure over  the  past  5 years has been:

    Notes (species   affected,      etc.):        o    Increased   sharply                        b. I??-                                 c. impact                      d. Permanence

                                                  o    increased   slightly                        o Throughout    (>50%)                   0  Severe    impact            0  Permanent     (> 100   years)

                                                  o    Remained    constant                        o   Widespread      (15-50%)             o  High   impact               0  Long term   (50-l    00  years)

                                                  o    Decreased    slightly                       o   Scattered  (5-l  5%)                 o  Moderate     impact         o  Medium    term   (1 O-50   years)

                                                  o    Decreased    sharply                        o   Locolised  (15%)                     o  Mild  impact                o  Short term   (< 10 years)



2.  PRESSURES     -  Road    construction     1
    0  is  0    is not     o pressure          ct. In the   past 5 yews,    this activity has:    The overall   impact   of this pressure over  the past   5 years has been:

    Notes (species   affected,      etc.):        o    Increased   sharply                        b. b                                    c. b=t                          d. Permanence

                                                  o    Increased   slightly                         o Throughout   (>50%)                   0   Severe   impact            0  Permanent     (Z 100    years)

                                                  o    Remained    constant                         o  Widespread      (1550%)              o   High  impact               0  tong  term   (50-l   00  years)

                                                  o    Decreased    slightly                        o  Scattered  (515%)                    o  Moderate     impact         o  Medium    term    (1 O-50   years)

                                                  o    Decreased    sharply                         o  Locolised  (<5%)                     o  Mild   impact                o Short term   (C 10 years)



2.  PRESSURES     -  Forest   fires

    0  is  0    is not     0 pressure          o. In the    post 5 years,   this activity has:    The overall   impact   of this pressure over  the past   5 years has been:

    Notes (species   affected,      etc.):        o    Increased   sharply                        b. &m                                   c. lmDQct                       d. Permanence

                                                  o    Increased   slightly                         o Throughout   (X0%)                    0   Severe   impact             0 Permanent     (> 100    years)

                                                  o    Remained    constant                         o  Widespread      (15-50X)             o   High  impact                0 tong term    (50-l   00  years)

                                                  o    Decreased    slightly                        o  Scattered  (515%)                    o  Moderate     impact          o Medium    term    (1 O-50   years)

                                                  o    Decreased    sharply                         o  Localised  (~5%)                     o  Mild   impact                o Short term   (Cl   0 years)



 !. PRESSURES     -  NTFP    gathering

    0  is  0    is not     a pressure           I. In the   past 5 years,   this activity has:    The overall   impact   of this pressure over  the post   5 yews  has been:

    Notes (species   affected,      etc.):        o    Increased   sharply                        b. Ranae                                c. !rJpgg                       d. Permanence

                                                  o    Increased   slightly                         o Throughout   (>50%)                   0   Severe   impact             0 Permanent     (> 100    years)

                                                  o    Remained    constant                         o  Widespread      (15~50%)             o   High  impact                0 Long  term   (50-l   00  years)

                                                  o    Decreased    slightly                        o  Scattered   (5-l 5%)                 o  Moderate     impact          o Medium    term    (1 O-50   years)

                                                  o    Decreased    sharply                         o  Localised  (<5%)                     o   Mild  impact                o Short  term  (< 10 years)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                 82

2. PRESSURES      - Tseri/pangshing

   0   is  0    is not      Cl pressure          a In the post     5 years,      this activity   has:       The overall   impact  of this pressure   over   the past   5 years   has been:

    Notes (species   affected,     etc.):          o    Increased      sharply                              b. RPCXC                                  c. lnlp.alt                         d. Permanence

                                                   o    Increased      slightly                               o Throughout   (>50%)                     0  Severe    impact                 0  Permanent    (> 100   years)

                                                   o    Remained       constant                               o Widespread       (15.50%)               o   High  impact                    0  tong term   (50-l   00  years)

                                                   o    Decreased       slightly                              o Scattered   (5-l  5%)                   o  Moderate      impact             o Medium    term   (1 O-50   years)

                                                   o    Decreased       sharply                               o Localised   (<5X)                       o  Mild   impact                    o  Short term  (< 10 years)



  . PRESSURES     -  Firewood      collection

    0  is  0    is not      0 pressure            . In the   post  5 yews,       this activity   has:       The overall   impact  of this pressure   over   the past   5 years   has been:

    Notes (species    affected,    etc.):          o    Increased      sharply                              b. be                                     c. Iml)act                          d. Permanence

                                                   o    Increased      slightly                               o Throughout   (>50%)                     0   Severe   impact                 0  Permanent    (> 100   years)

                                                   o    Remained       constant                               o Widespread       (15.50%)               o   High  impact                    0  Long term   (50-l   00  years)

                                                   o    Decreased       slightly                              o Scattered    (5-l 5%)                   o   Moderate     impact             o  Medium   term    (1 O-50   years)

                                                   o    Decreased       sharply                               o Local&d     (~5%)                       o   Mild  impact                    o  Short term   (Cl  0 years)

 `. THREATS   -   Poaching

    0  is  0    is not      o threat                The likelihood       of this activity     occurring:    The overoll   impact   of this pressure  over   the past   5 years    has been:                                          I

    Notes (species    affected,    etc.):          o    Increased      sharply                              b. Ranse                                  c. ImJpJ                            d. Permanence

                                                   o    increased      slightly                               o Throughout   (>50%)                     0   Severe   impact                 0  Permanent    (> 100    years)

                                                   o    Remained       constant                               o Widespread       (15-50%)               o   High   impact                   0  Long term   (50-l   00 years)

                                                   o    Decreased        slightly                             o Scattered    (5-l 5%)                   o   Moderate     impact             o  Medium   term    (1 O-50   years)

                                                   o    Decreased        sharply                              o Localised   (<5%)                       o   Mild  impact                    o  Short term   (C 10 years)



 I. THREATS    -  Grazing

    0  is  0    is not      o threat             a. The likelihood       of this activity     to occur      The overall   impact   of this threat  over  the post    5 years   is likely to be:

    Notes (species    affected,    etc.):            or increase     in the next     5 years    is:         b. R_amz                                  c. m                                d. Permanence
                                                                                                                                                                                             _____-

                                                   o    Almost     definite                                   o Throughout   (>50%)                     0   Severe   impact                 0  Permanent    (> 100    years)

                                                   o    Very    likely                                        o Widespread       (15-50X)               o   High   impact                   0  tong term   (50- 100    years)

                                                   o    Likely                                                o Scattered    (5.15%)                    o   Moderate     impact             o  Medium   term    (1 O-50   years)

                                                   o     Possible                                             o Local&d     (~5%)                       o   Mild  impact                    o  Short term   (< 10 years)



3.  THREATS    -  Illegal   fishing

    0  is  0    is not      o threat             o. The likelihood       of this activity     to occur      The overall   impact   of this threat  over  the   past  5 years   is likely to be:

    Notes (species    affected,    etc.):            or increase     in the next     5 years    is:         b. Ronae                                  c. lmJaJ&                           d. Permanence
                                                                                                                                                                                             --

                                                   o    Almost     definite                                   o Throughout   (>50%)                     0   Severe   impact                 0  Permanent    (> 100    years)

                                                   o    Very    likely                                        o Widespread       (15-50%)               o   High   impact                   0  Long  term  (50-l   00  years)

                                                   o     Likely                                               o Scattered    (5-l 5%)                   o   Moderate     impact             o  Medium    term   (1 O-50   years)

                                                   o     Possible                                             o Local&d     (<5X)                       o   Mild   impact                   o  Short term   (< 10 years)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  83

3. THREATS-Timber            felling

    0  is  0   is not      a threat           o. The likelihood       of this activity to occur    The overall   impact   of this threat over  the past    5 years  is likely to be:

    Notes (species   affected,     etc.]:         or increase     in the next   5 years  is:       b. Ronae                                 c. lrJ&QQ                          d. Permanence

                                                 o   Almost     definite                            o Throughout    (>50%)                    0   Severe   impact                0   Permanent   (> 100    years)

                                                 o   Very    likely                                 o   Widespread      (15.SO"/,)            o   High   impact                  0  Long  term  (50-l    00 years)

                                                 o   Likely                                         o   Scattered  (5-l  5%)                  o   Moderate     impact            o  Medium    term   (1 O-50   years)

                                                 o   Possible                                       o   Localised  (<5%)                      o   Mild  impact                   o  Short  term  (< 10 years)



 #. THREATS   - Road      construction

    0  is  0   is not       a threat            . The likelihood      of this activity to occur    The overnil   impact   of this threat over  the past   5 years   is likely to be:

    Notes (species   affected,     etc.):        or increase      in the  next  5 years  is:       b. Ronpe                                 c. Imy)act                         d. Permanence
                                                                                                                                                                                  ---

                                                 o   Almost     definite                            o Throughout    (>50%)                    0   Severe   impact                0   Permanent   (`100     years)

                                                 o   Very    likely                                 o   Widespread      (1550%)               o   High   impact                  0   Long term   (50-l   00  years)

                                                 o   Likely                                         o   Scattered  (5.15%)                    o   Moderate     impact            o  Medium    term   (1 O-50   years)

                                                 o   Possible                                       o   Locaiised  (~5%)                      o   Mild  impact                   o   Short term  (Cl   0 years)



3. THREATS    -   Forest   fires

    0  is  0    is not      a threat          a. The likelihood       of this activity to occur    The overall   impact   of this threat over  the   past  5 years  is likely to be:

    Notes (species   affected,      etc.):        or increase     in the next   5 yews   is:       b. !?~we                                 c. lmm                             d. Permanence

                                                 o   Almost     definite                             o Throughout   (>50%)                    0   Severe   impact                0   Permanent    (> 100   years)

                                                 o   Very    likely                                  o  Widespread      (1 5-SO04             o   High   impact                  0   tong term   (SO- 100    years)

                                                 o   Likely                                          o  Scattered  (515%)                     o   Moderate     impact            o   Medium   term    (1 O-50   years)

                                                 o   Possible                                        o  Localised  (es%)                      o   Mild   impact                  o   Short term  (< 10 years)



3. THREATS    -   NTFP    gathering

    0  is  0    is not      CI threat         o. The   likelihood     of this activity to occur    The overall   impact   of this threat over   the post   5 yews   is likely to be:

    Notes (species   affected,      etc.):        or increase     in the next   5 years  is:       b. Rangs                                 c. hJpLl                           d. Permanence

                                                 o   Almost     definite                             o Throughout   (>50%)                    0   Severe   impact                0   Permanent    (> 100    years)

                                                 o   Very    likely                                  o  Widespread      (15-50%)              o   High   impact                  0   Long term   (50-l   00  years)

                                                 o   Likely                                          o  Scattered  (5-l  5%)                  o   Moderote     impact            o   Medium   term   (1 O-50    years)

                                                 o   Possible                                        o  Localised  (<5%)                      o   Mild   impact                  o   Short term  (< 10 years)



 I. THREATS   -   Tseri/ponshing

    0  is  0    is not      a threat          a  The   likelihood     of this activity to occur    The overall   impact   of this threat over  the   past  5 years  is likely to be:

    Notes (species   affected,      etc.):        or increase     in the next   5 years  is:       b. Ranqe                                 c. lmmaxl                          d. Permanence

                                                 o   Almost     definite                             o Throughout   (>50%)                    0   Severe   impact                0   Permanent    (> 100    years)

                                                 o   Very    likely                                  o  Widespread      (1550%)               o   High   impact                  0   Long term   (50-l   00  years)

                                                 o   Likely                                          o  Scattered   (5-l 5%)                  o   Moderate     impact            o   Medium   term    (1 O-50   years)

                                                 o   Possible                                        o  Localised  (<SO/,)                    o   Mild   impact                  o   Short term  (Cl   0 years)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                       84

3. THREATS    -   Firewood     collection

   0  is   0   is not       a threat                                a. The    likelihood     of this activity    to occur                 The overall     impact  of this threat over  the past  5 years  is likely to be:

   Notes  (species   affected,    etc.):                                or increase       in the next    5 years     is:                  b. Ranne                                  c. w                             d. Permanence

                                                                       o    Almost     definite                                             o Throughout      (>50%)                 0   Severe  impact                0  Permanent   (> 100   years)

                                                                       o    Very     likely                                                 o   Widespread       (15-50%)            o   High  impact                  0  Long term  (50-100    years)

                                                                       o    Likely                                                          o   Scattered    (5-l 5%)                o   Moderate    impact            o  Medium   term  (1 O-50   years)

                                                                       o    Possible                                                        o   Localised    (<5%)                   o   Mild  impact                  o  Short term  (< 10 years)



1. BIOLOGICAL       IMPORTANCE

Y  m/v   4"      n    u                                                                                                                                                                                   INOTES                                             1
0    0    0     0     o   a)   The   PA contains     o globally     outstanding        ecosystem.

0    0    0     0     o   b)   The   PA contains     globally    row,    threatened        or endangered        species.

0    0    0     0     o   c)  The PA contains       regionally     rare,   threatened       or endangered         species.

0    0    0     0     o   d)   The   PA has high     levels  of biological       diversity

0    0    0     0     o   e)   The PA has o high number            of endemic       species

0    0    0     0     o   f)  The PA provides        o critical   landscape       function.

0    0    0     o     o   g)   The PA is large       enough    to support      minimum      viable    populations      of umbrella      species

0    0    Cl    0     o   h)   The PA contains       exemplary        and  intact   ecosystems.

0    0    0     cl    o   I) The    PA significantly     contributes     to the overall       representativeness         of the PA system.

0    0    0      0    o   i)  The   PA contains     important,     high   quality    habitat    types    for key    species.



i. SOCIAL    IMPORTANCE

Y "J/Y   4"      "    u                                                                                                                                                                                     NOTES

0    0    0      0    o   a)   The PA provides        economic     opportunities        for  individuals    within   or near     the  PA.

0    0     0     0    o    b)  The PA demonstrates          opportunities       for   sustainable     development,         consistent  with   the  PA objectives.

0    0     0     0    o   c)  The   PA has o high      level   of subsistence       and/or     traditionnl    use by local       communities.

0    0     0     0    o   d)   The PA has religious        or spiritual    significance.

0    0     0     0    o   e)   The   PA has unusual      features     of aesthetic      importance      [e.g.  hot springs,      scenic  vistas,  geoheritoge     areas).

0    cl    0     0    o   f)  The PA contains       species    of high    social   or economic       value   (e.g.   medicinal     value,   food   prototypes).

0    0     0     0    o   g)   The PA has high        value  for   education      and    or scientific    research.

0    0     0     0    o   h)   The PA has high       recreation     value.

0    0     0     0    o    i) The functions    of the ecosystems         within    the protecied       area   contribute     significant    social or economic     benefits.

0    0     0     0    o    i) The local   community       or economy       is highly     dependent      upon    the resources      in the protected      area



6. VULNERABILITY

 Y m/r   4"      "   "                                                                                                                                                                                      NOTES

0    0   0      0    o   a)   The orea    is difficult   to monitor,     either    because     of too few      staff,   large   size of the oreo,      or remoteness.

0    0   0      0    o   b)   The protected       orea    management         is under     pressure    to unduly     exploit   the    PA's natural   resources.

0    0   0      0    o   c)   Bribery   and   corruption     is common      throughout       the region.

0    0   0      0    o   d)   The area    is experiencing        civil unrest.

0    0   0   0   o e) Cultural    practices,    beliefs     and    traditional      uses conflict      with the objectives         of the protected       area

0    0   0   0   o f) The resource      value   of the protected           oreo    is high     (e.g.  high quality       timber,    rich mineral     resources).

0    0   0   0   o g) The ores      is easily   accessible       (e.g.   near   major     roads,     airstrips   and/or       waterways).

0    0   0   0   o h) There   is o strong     demand        for and      trade    in, PA resources        (e.g.   endangered          animals,     medicionals).

0    0   0   0   o i) The oreo    surrounding       the protected          oreo    is experiencing        sharp     economic      and/or      population     pressures.

0    0   0   0   o j) Recruitment     and    retention     of employees          is difficult.



                                                                                                                                       PLANNING

7. OBJECTIVES                                                1
 Y m/r  m/n   n  u                                                                                                                                                               NOTES

0   0    0   0   o a) PA objectives        provide    for   the protection         and    maintenance        of  biological      diversity    and    associated    resources.

0    0   0    0  o b) The objectives       of the PA ore         clearly    stated     in the management            plan.

0    0   0    0  o c) The management           policies    and     plans    ore   consistent      with  the PA objectives.

0    0   0    0  o d)  PA employees        and     administrators        understand       the    PA objectives       and    policies.

0    0   0    0  o e) Local   communities       support     the overall       objectives       of the   PA.



8. LEGAL   STATUS AND  SECURITY

 Y m/v   m/n   n "                                                                                                                                                               NOTES

0    0   0    0  o a) The   protected      area     has long-term         legally-binding         protection.

0    0   0    0  o b) There    ore   no unsettled       disputes      regarding       land    tenure    or use rights.

0    0   0    0  o c) Boundary      demarcation         is adequate        to meet      the PA objectives.

0    0   0    0  o d)  There   is effective     enforcement         of all laws      within    the   PA.

0   0    0    0  o e) Conflicts   with    the local     community        ore   resolved      fairly   and    effectively.



9. PA SITE DESIGN  AND  PLANING                               1
 Y m/r   m/n   n u                                                                                                                                                               NOTES

0    0   0    0  o a) The   layout    and    configuration        of the PA optimizes           the conservation          of  biodiversity.

0    0   0    0  o b) The   land   use in the surrounding            landscape       (buffer,     corridor)     enables      effective     PA management.

0    0   0    0  o c) The siting   of the    PA is consistent        with   the   PA objectives.

0    0   0    0  o d) The   PA zoning      system     is adequate         to achieve      the    PA objectives.

0    0   0    0  o e) The protected        orea    is linked     to another      area     of conserved        and/or       protected     land.



                                                                                                                                       INPUTS

10.  STAFF

 Y m/r   m/n   n u                                                                                                                                                               NOTES

0    0   0    0  o a)  The number       of staffing      is sufficient    to effectively        manage      the area.

0    0   0    0  o b)  Staff  members       have    adequate         skills  to conduct       management         activities.

0    0   0    0  o c) There   is clear    internal    organization         (e.g.  job descriptions).

0    0   0    0  o d)  Staff  support     (e.g.   training,    supervision,       monitoring)       ore   appropriate         to the needs      of the staff

0    0   0    0  o e)  Staff  employment        conditions       (e.g.   salaries,    benefits,      working     environment)        ore   sufficient  to retain   staff.




                                                                                                                                                                                          86

0      0      0     cl  o a)  There    is effective       communication           between        all PA staff     and    administration.

0      0    cl   Cl     o  b) Communication            meclns    between        field    and    office   staff   are   adequate         (.e.g.   radios,   telephone,     faxes).

0      0      0  0      o c)  There    ore    adequate        systems     for processing           information      and     data   (e.g.   computers,       software,    filing  systems).

0      0      Cl 0      o d)  Data     about      the  PA is available          and    relatively      recent    (e.g.   satellite    imagery,      aerial    photos,  field   study   reports).




12.    TRANSPORTATION          AND      FACILITIES

 Y m/r      4"        n u                                                                                                                                                                            NOTES

0    0        0     0   o  a) Transportation          means      are   adequate         to enable       effective     monitoring        and   other   critical  management         activities.

0      0      0     0   o  b) Equipment        for   field-level      data     collection     is adequate        (e.g.   field   glasses,     back    country    gear,   GPS    monitors).

0      0      0     0   o c)  Staff   facilities    are    adequate        (e.g.    staff   offices,    research     stations,    field    offices).

0      0      0     0   o  d) Maintenance           and   care    of equipment           is adequate        to ensure      long-term      use.

0      0      0     00      e) Visitor    facilities    (e.g.   trails,  signs,    camping        areas)    are   appropriate          to the level     of visitor  use.



                                                                                                                                                    PRACTICES

113.   MANAGEMENT          PLANNING          PRACTICES
                                                                                                   I
 Y m/r      d"        " "                                                                                                                                                                           INOTES

              0     0   o  a) There     is o comprehensive,            relatively       recent     written   management           plan.

              0     0   o  b) There     is an up-to-date          natural      resources      inventory,      including     mops     of the orea.

              0     0   o  c) An ICDP       plan    has been      completed         for    the PA.

              0     0   o  d) There     is on analysis        of,  and   strategy        for addressing,         PA threats       and    pressures.

              0     0   o  e) Specific     goals     and    targets    ore     identified       for achieving       management           activities   within    a reusonable      timeframe.

              0     0   o  f) There    is clear     leadership       and    strong     teamwork         among      staff.

              0     0   CI g) Management            decision     making       is transparent.

              0     0   o  h) PA staff      regularly      collaborate        with    external       partners,    local    communities        and   other   organizations.

              0     0   o  i) Local   communities         participate      in decisions        that   affect    them.

              0     0   o  i) Management            planning     continually       incorporates         and    adapts     to new     learning.



 14.    FINANCIAL      MANAGEMENT

 Y m/r      4"        " "                                                                                                                                                                            NOTES

 0     0      0     0   CJ a) There     is adequate         funding     to conduct        all critical    management          activities.

 0      Cl    0     0   o  b)  Financial      management          practices       enable      efficient    and    effective      PA management.

 0      0     0     0   o  c) The allocation         of expenses       is appropriate            to PA priorities       and    objectives.

 0      0     0     0   o  d)  Short   term     (l-5    years)    funding      of the     PA is secure.

 0      0     0     0   CJ e) There     is a plan      for   long-term      financial       sustainability.




                                                                                                                                                                                                              87

0




     -  -  -    -  -  -  -  -  -  -




     -  -       -  -  -  -  -  -  -

SUMMARY  OF BTF GRANTS




                          89

                        Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation
                        Conservation Grants Portfolio
                                                                          Gram      Title   CpcGrantee                                                                                                                               PUrpOSe

                        A.mpleted            oroiects:
                        1. Institutional      Support       (Nature      Con.w-vutron          Sectron,     F'orrs~q~    Servrcrs    D~vrsron)                 Ju193-Jun94               99,643    InstItutional      development
                        2. Royal     Manas      National       Park                                                                                            Jul93-Jun94               48,452    In-situ     conservation     Rr Infrastructure     dev
                        3. Jigme     Dorji    National       Park                                                                                              Jul93-Jun94               58,63  I  In-situ     conservation     &  Infrastructure     dev
                        4. Royal     Manas      National        Park                                                                                           Jul94-Jun9.S              45,476    In-situ     conservation     &  Infrastructure     dev
                        5. Integrated      Conservation           11: Development           ProJect     in JIgme      Dorjt   National    Park                 Jul95-Jun96             I 10,833    In-situ     conservation     &  community       dev.
                        6. Bumdeling        Wildlife      Sanctuary                                                                                            Jul95-Jun96               17,857    In-situ     conservation     &  Infrastructure     dev
                        7. JIgme     Dorji    National       Park                                                                                              Jul96-Jun97               55,286    In-situ     conservation     &  Infrastructure     dev.
                        8. Royal     Botanic     Garden        (Mrmstry       ofAgrrculture)                                                                 ApNY-Juno0                135,9OS     Ex-situ     conservation      &  lnfmstructure      dev
                        9. Thimphu        smoke      pollution       survey     (National        Envrronmem          Cotnm~~s~on)                             Jan99-Jun99                 8,333    Applied       research
                        IO. Effects     of cattle     migration        (~Vfn~srv      ofrlgrrculrure)                                                          Jul99-Juno0                I ,30 I  Applied       research
                        I I. Electrical     cookers      as an altematlve           to firewood         (Ro&       Bhutan     Pol~e)                           Jul99-Juno0               23,704    Pilot    alternatlve    energy
                        12. In search       of greenhouse           deities    (Kurnra      liru)                                                              Oct99-JulOO                9,s I4   Research
                        13. Incremental         staffing     and     HRD     (Royal      Socle/yjbr       I'rokctron      ofNature)                            Jul98-JunOI             I IO, 102   Institutional       development
                        14. Capped       langurs      in Bhutan        (7hshl    Wungchuk)                                                                   Dec99-May00                 10,255    Applied       research
                        I5   Bragtsha      wa:ershed         mgmt      (Sonam      flvurnrup        Tshogpa,       Trushr   Yungise)                         AprOO-Juno0                  6.4 I7   Community          development
                        16. Rural     livelihoods        (Dekr     Pema)                                                                                      JulOO-NovOO                 7, I I3  Research
                        17. Fuelwood         consumption           &   altematlve        energy      sources     (perrra   Norhu)                            AugOO-NovOO                  8,667    Research
                        18. Trust     fund    wall    calendars       for 2001      (Krgsar      Cof?sulfunc,v~                                              OctOO-Nov00                  4,348    Public      education
                        I9   Support      for  Phipsoo        Wildlife      Sanctuary        (Uepr.oJfiores~~~          .Serv~cr.~/                          NovOO-Juno        I         54.348    In-situ     conservatmn      Xr Infrastructure     dev
                        20.  Trust    fund    stamps      (Bhutan       Post   Corporutron)                                                                  NovOO-Mar0        1          7,609    Pubhc       education
                        2 I. Bhutan      Scouts     Association          (Depurtmenr          of Educurron)                                                    July-AugO      I           3,366    Research
                                                                                                                                                  Totul   completed    prqect.7        827,  I60
                        B   Ongoing       projs:
                        22.  Envrronmental           education        at lower     prtmary       level   (Lkpurtrnenr        c$Edwurror?)                      Jul97-Juno2             I3 1,866    Env.     Education
                        23.  Institutional      support       to Royal      Society      for   the Protection        of  Nature                                Jul98-Juno3             3 l2,47   I  InstitutIonal      development
                        24.  HRD      for   conservation          (Roval    Cwrl     Servrce     Commrsslon)                                                   Jul%-Juno3           I ,639,786     Instttutlonal       dev.of  NCD,     NEC      & 6 operatlonal  parks
                        25.  EnvIronmental           research       &   building      capacity      for  NRM       at Sherubtse      College                   Jul99-Juno3             445,000      Institutional      development      Rr research
                        26.   Incremental       staffing      and    recurrent     costs     of conservation          (Mwnsly      ofF~tunce)                  Jul98-Juno3          1,435,    IO I  lnstttutional      dev.of  NCD,     NEC      & 6 operatlonal  parks
                        27.  Environmental           monitoring          of Forest    Mgmt        lJnits   (Dept.ofForesfrv         Services)                 JanOO-Deco2              182.3   I9  Env      Monitoring
                        28.  HRD      at the   National        Environment          Commission                                                                 JulOO-Juno3             174.000      InstitutIonal      development
                        29.  Ecology       of Bhutan       Takin      flrhewang         R. Wungchuk)                                                           JulOO-Juno2                6,667    Applied       research
                        30.  Documentary          film    on the trust        fund    (Bhutan       C`omnzunrcu~rons         Inc.)                             June-Aug02                10,000     Public     education
                        3 I. MSc.     in plant    taxonomy           (National     Bwdrvers~<v          Centre,     MOA)                                       JulO I -Deco2             57,000     Institutional      development
                        32.   Royal     Botanic     Garden,        Phase    II (Mmrstry         ofAgrrcz&ure)                                                  JulOl   -Juno3            93,804     Infrastructure       development
                        33.   MSc     m freshwater         fisheries      biology     (M~nrsfr?,      o/`Agr:rrculfure)                                        JulO I -Juno3             80,000     Institutional      development
                        34.   Endowment         Fund      (Royal      Socrelyfor       the Prorecrlon         ofNatwe)                                         JulO 1 -Deco3           450.000      InstItutional      development
                        35.   Capacity      building      at Trust      Fund    secretariat                                                                    JulOl   -Juno3            80,000     InstItutIonal      development
                        36.   Bumdeling        Wildlife       Sanctuary                                                                                        Jan02-Deco3              188,759     In-situ    conservation     &   Infrastructure    dev
                        37.   Strengthening         forest     fire  management           (I)epurf~nem         ofForestry      Ser-v~ces)                     Deco    I -Deco3         2 10,000     Ex-situ     conservation
                        38.   MSc     m social/communrty               forestry     (Depurrntenr         ofFores/r?:      Services)                            JanOZ-Deco3               50,000     InstItutional      development
                        39.   Pilot   research     on wild        prg  management            (Deparrmem         ofFores/?        Servrces)                     Jul02-Juno4              I 10,000    Applied      research
                                                                                                                                                     Ibtul  ongorng    pro/errs     5,656,773
                                                                                                                                   Tolal   cornpletrd     & ongorng    prqecls      6,183.    Y33


QectsJamleReport   (1)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Sheetl.Pagel