Reporting Progress in Protected Areas A Site-Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool Contact Information: Sue Stolton equilibrium@compuserve.com Marc Hockings m.hockings@mailbox.uq.edu.au Nigel Dudley equilibrium@compuserve.com Kathy MacKinnon kmackinnon@worldbank.org Tony Whitten twhitten@worldbank.org Printed in May 2003 © World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use. The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool is a working document, and will be periodically updated based on experience with its implementation. Any such revisions will be reprinted accordingly. Contents Background 1 The WCPA Framework 1 Purpose of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool 3 Guidance notes for using the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool 3 Data Sheet and Questionnaire 5 Acknowledgements Prepared for the World Bank/WWF Alliance. Many thanks to those people who commented on earlier drafts, including Rod Atkins, David Cassells, Peter Cochrane, Finn Danielsen, Jamison Ervin, Jack Hurd, Glenys Jones, Leonardo Lacerda, Rosa Lemos de Sá, Mariana Montoya, Marianne Meijboom, Sheila O'Connor, Christian Peter, Jeff Sayer. This version of the system also benefited considerably from a consultant's report written by Antoine Leclerc. Antoine interviewed many people in WWF's Indochina Programme about the tracking tool, and their experience is reflected here. Sue Stolton, Marc Hockings, Nigel Dudley, Kathy MacKinnon, and Tony Whitten April 2003 Background hectares of existing but highly threatened forest protected areas to be secured under There is a growing concern amongst effective management by the year 20052.To protected area professionals that many evaluate progress towards this target the protected areas around the world are not Alliance has developed a simple site-level achieving the objectives for which they tracking tool to facilitate reporting on were established. One response to this management effectiveness of protected concern has been an emphasis on the areas within WWF and World Bank projects. need to increase the effectiveness of The tracking tool has been built around the protected area management, and to help application of the WCPA Framework and this process a number of assessment tools Appendix II of the Framework document has have been developed to assess provided its basic structure. management practices. It is clear that the existence of a wide range of situations and The Management Effectiveness Tracking needs require different methods of Tool forms part of a series of management assessment. The World Commission on effectiveness assessment tools, which range Protected Areas (WCPA) has therefore from the WWF Rapid Assessment and developed a `framework' for assessment1. Prioritisation Methodology used to identify The WCPA framework aims both to provide key protected areas at threat within a some overall guidance in the development protected area system to detailed of assessment systems and to encourage monitoring systems such as those being standards for assessment and reporting. developed by the Enhancing Our Heritage project for UNESCO natural World Heritage The WCPA Framework is based on the idea sites. The Alliance has also supported the that good protected area management development of both the WCPA framework follows a process that has six distinct stages, and the development of the WWF Rapid or elements: Assessment and Prioritisation Methodology. § it begins with understanding the context The WCPA Framework of existing values and threats, § progresses through planning, and § allocation of resources (inputs), and To maximise the potential of protected § as a result of management actions areas, and to improve management (processes), processes, we need to understand the § eventually produces products and strengths and weaknesses of their services (outputs), management and the threats that they § that result in impacts or outcomes. face. In the last few years, various methodologies for assessing management The World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest effectiveness of protected areas have been Conservation and Sustainable Use (`the developed and tested around the world. Alliance') was formed in April 1998, in The World Commission on Protected Areas response to the continued depletion of the provides an overarching framework for world's forest biodiversity and of forest- assessing management effectiveness of based goods and services essential for both protected areas and protected area sustainable development. As part of its systems, to give guidance to managers and programme of work the Alliance has set a others and to help harmonise assessment target relating to management around the world. effectiveness of protected areas: 50 million 2Dudley, Nigel and Sue Stolton (1999); Threats to 1Hockings, Marc with Sue Stolton and Nigel Dudley Forest Protected Areas: Summary of a survey of 10 (2000); Assessing Effectiveness ­ A Framework for countries; project carried out for the WWF/World Bank Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Alliance in association with the IUCN World Areas; University of Cardiff and IUCN, Switzerland Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN, Switzerland Reporting progress in protected areas 1 Table 1 contains a very brief summary of the Questions in the following tracking tool have elements of the WCPA Framework and the been ordered to make completion as easy as criteria that can be assessed3. The possible; the element(s) that each refers to are Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool indicated in the left hand column. has been designed to fulfil the elements of evaluation included in the Framework. Table 1: Summary of the WCPA Framework Elements of Focus of evaluation Explanation Criteria that are assessed evaluation - Significance Where are we now? - Threats Assessment of importance, Context threats and policy environment - Vulnerability Status - National context - Partners - Protected area legislation and policy Where do we want to be? - Protected area system Planning Assessment of protected area design Appropriateness design and planning - Reserve design - Management planning What do we need? - Resourcing of agency Inputs Assessment of resources needed to carry out - Resourcing of site Resources management How do we go about it? - Suitability of Efficiency and Processes Assessment of the way in which management management is conducted processes appropriateness What were the results? Assessment of the - Results of management Outputs implementation of actions management programmes and Effectiveness actions; delivery of products - Services and products and services What did we achieve? - Impacts: effects of Effectiveness and Outcomes Assessment of the outcomes management in and the extent to which they relation to objectives appropriateness achieved objectives 3For a copy of the WPCA Framework or a more detailed summary please visit the WCPA web-site at: www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa or contact WCPA at wcpa@hq.iucn.org Reporting progress in protected areas 2 Purpose of the Management progress in improving the effectiveness of Effectiveness Tracking Tool management in individual protected areas, to be filled in by the protected area manager or other relevant site staff. As The Management Effectiveness Tracking such it is clear that there are strict Tool has been developed to help track limitations on what it can achieve: it and monitor progress in the achievement should not for example be regarded as an of the World Bank/WWF Alliance independent assessment, or as the sole worldwide protected area management basis for adaptive management. effectiveness target. It is also hoped that the tracking tool will be used more Because of the great differences between generally where it can help monitor expectations, resources and needs progress towards improving management around the world, the tracking tool also effectiveness; for example it is being used has strict limitations in terms of allowing by the Global Environment Facility. comparison between sites: the scoring system, if applied at all, will be most useful The Alliance has identified that the for tracking progress over time in one site tracking tool needs to be: or a closely related group of sites. § Capable of providing a harmonised Lastly, the tracking tool is too limited to reporting system for protected area allow a detailed evaluation of outcomes assessment within both the World Bank and is really aimed at providing a quick and WWF; overview of the management steps § Suitable for replication; identified in the WCPA Framework up to § Able to supply consistent data to allow and including outputs. Although we tracking of progress over time; include some questions relating to § Relatively quick and easy to complete outcomes, the limitations of these should by protected area staff, so as not to be noted. Clearly, however good be reliant on high levels of funding or management is, if biodiversity continues to other resources; decline, the protected area objectives are not being met. Therefore the question § Capable of providing a "score" if on condition assessment has required; disproportionate importance in the overall § Based around a system that provides tracking tool. four alternative text answers to each question, strengthening the scoring system; § Easily understood by non-specialists; Guidance notes for using the and Management Effectiveness § Nested within existing reporting systems Tracking Tool to avoid duplication of effort. The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool can be completed by protected Limitations area staff or project staff, with input from other protected area staff. The tracking The Management Effectiveness Tracking tool has been designed to be easily Tool is aimed to help reporting progress on answered by those managing the management effectiveness and should protected area without any additional not replace more thorough methods of research. assessment for the purposes of adaptive management. The tracking tool has been developed to provide a quick overview of Reporting progress in protected areas 3 All sections of the tracking tool should be anyone reading the report an idea of completed. There are two sections: why the assessment was made). In this section we also suggest that 1. Datasheet: which details key respondents comment on the information on the site, its role/influence of WWF or World Bank characteristics and management projects if appropriate. On some objectives and includes an overview occasions suggestions are made of WWF/World Bank involvement. about what might be covered in the comments column. 2. Assessment Form: the assessment form includes three distinct sections, all of § Next Steps: for each question which should be completed. respondents are asked to identify a long-term management need to further adaptive management at the § Questions and scores: the main part site, if this is relevant. of the assessment form is a series of 30 questions that can be answered by assigning a simple score ranging 3. Final Score: a final total of the score between 0 (poor) to 3 (excellent). A from completing the assessment form series of four alternative answers are can be calculated as a percentage of provided against each question to scores from those questions that were help assessors to make judgements relevant to a particular protected area. as to the level of score given. (So for example if 5 questions are Questions that are not relevant to a believed to be irrelevant (and this is particular protected area should be justified in the comments column) then omitted, with a reason given in the the final score would be multiplied by comments section (for example 30/25 to offset the fact that some questions about use and visitors will questions were not applied.) If the not be relevant to a protected area additional questions are relevant to managed according to the IUCN the protected area, add the protected area management additional score to the total if they are Category Ia). In addition, there are relevant and omit them if they are not. six supplementary questions which elaborate on key themes in the previous questions and provide additional information and points. Disclaimer: The whole concept of This is, inevitably, an approximate "scoring" progress is fraught with difficulties process and there will be situations in and possibilities for distortion. The current which none of the four alternative system assumes, for example, that all the answers appear to fit conditions in questions cover issues of equal weight, the protected area very precisely. whereas this is not necessarily the case. We suggest that you choose the Accuracy might be improved by answer that is nearest and use the weighting the various scores although this comments section to elaborate. would provide additional challenges in deciding differing weightings. In the § Comments: a box next to each current version a simple scoring system is question allows for qualitative maintained, but the limitations of this judgements to be justified by approach should be recognised. explaining why they were made (this could range from personal opinion, a reference document, monitoring results or external studies and assessments ­ the point being to give Reporting progress in protected areas 4 Reporting Progress in Protected Areas: Data Sheet Name of protected area Location of protected area (country, ecoregion, and if possible map reference) Date of establishment (distinguish between Agreed Gazetted agreed and gazetted*) Ownership details (i.e. owner, tenure rights etc) Management Authority Size of protected area (ha) Number of staff Permanent Temporary Annual budget (US$) Designations (IUCN category, World Heritage, Ramsar etc) Reasons for designation Brief details of World Bank funded project or projects in PA Brief details of WWF funded project or projects in PA Brief details of other relevant projects in PA List the two primary protected area objectives Objective 1 Objective 2 List the top two most important threats to the PA (and indicate reasons why these were chosen) Threat 1 Threat 2 List top two critical management activities Activity 1 Activity 2 Name/s of assessor (including people consulted): _______________________________________________________ Contact details (email etc.): ____________________________________________________________________________ Date assessment carried out (Day/Month/Year): _________________________________________________________ * Or formally established in the case of private protected areas Reporting progress in protected areas 5 Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps 1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted 0 Note: see fourth option for private reserves Does the The government has agreed that the 1 protected area protected area should be gazetted but the have legal status? process has not yet begun The protected area is in the process of being 2 gazetted but the process is still incomplete Context The protected area has been legally gazetted 3 (or in the case of private reserves is owned by a trust or similar) 2. Protected area There are no mechanisms for controlling 0 regulations inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area Are inappropriate Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land land uses and use and activities in the protected area exist 1 activities (e.g. but there are major problems in implementing poaching) them effectively controlled? Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land 2 use and activities in the protected area exist but there are some problems in effectively Context implementing them Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land 3 use and activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively implemented 3. Law The staff have no effective 0 Possible issue for comment: What enforcement capacity/resources to enforce protected happens if people are arrested? area legislation and regulations Can staff enforce There are major deficiencies in staff 1 protected area capacity/resources to enforce protected rules well area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of enough? skills, no patrol budget) The staff have acceptable 2 capacity/resources to enforce protected area legislation and regulations but some Context deficiencies remain The staff have excellent capacity/resources to 3 enforce protected area legislation and regulations Reporting progress in protected areas 6 Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps 4. Protected area No firm objectives have been agreed for the 0 objectives protected area Have objectives The protected area has agreed objectives, 1 been agreed? but is not managed according to these objectives The protected area has agreed objectives, 2 Planning but these are only partially implemented The protected area has agreed objectives 3 and is managed to meet these objectives 5. Protected area Inadequacies in design mean achieving the 0 Possible issue for comment: does the design protected areas major management protected area contain different objectives of the protected area is impossible management zones and are these Does the Inadequacies in design mean that 1 well maintained? protected area achievement of major objectives are need enlarging, constrained to some extent corridors etc to Design is not significantly constraining 2 meet its achievement of major objectives, but could objectives? be improved Reserve design features are particularly aiding 3 Planning achievement of major objectives of the protected area 6. Protected area The boundary of the protected area is not 0 Possible issue for comment: are there boundary known by the management authority or local tenure disagreements affecting the demarcation residents/neighbouring land users protected area? The boundary of the protected area is known 1 Is the boundary by the management authority but is not known and known by local residents/neighbouring land demarcated? users The boundary of the protected area is known 2 Context by both the management authority and local residents but is not appropriately demarcated The boundary of the protected area is known 3 by the management authority and local residents and is appropriately demarcated Reporting progress in protected areas 7 Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps 7. Management There is no management plan for the 0 plan protected area Is there a A management plan is being prepared or has 1 management been prepared but is not being implemented plan and is it An approved management plan exists but it is 2 being only being partially implemented because of implemented? funding constraints or other problems An approved management plan exists and is 3 Planning being implemented Additional points The planning process allows adequate +1 opportunity for key stakeholders to influence the management plan There is an established schedule and process +1 for periodic review and updating of the management plan The results of monitoring, research and +1 evaluation are routinely incorporated into Planning planning 8. Regular work No regular work plan exists 0 plan A regular work plan exists but activities are not 1 Is there an annual monitored against the plan's targets work plan? A regular work plan exists and actions are 2 monitored against the plan's targets, but many activities are not completed A regular work plan exists, actions are 3 Planning/Outputs monitored against the plan's targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed 9. Resource There is little or no information available on the 0 inventory critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area Do you have Information on the critical habitats, species 1 enough and cultural values of the protected area is information to not sufficient to support planning and decision manage the making area? Reporting progress in protected areas 8 Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps Information on the critical habitats, species 2 and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient for key areas of planning/decision Context making but the necessary survey work is not being maintained Information concerning on the critical 3 habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is being maintained 10. Research There is no survey or research work taking 0 place in the protected area Is there a programme of There is some ad hoc survey and research 1 management- work orientated survey and research There is considerable survey and research 2 work? work but it is not directed towards the needs of protected area management Inputs There is a comprehensive, integrated 3 programme of survey and research work, which is relevant to management needs 11. Resource Requirements for active management of 0 management critical ecosystems, species and cultural values have not been assessed Is the protected Requirements for active management of 1 area adequately critical ecosystems, species and cultural managed (e.g. values are known but are not being for fire, invasive addressed species, Requirements for active management of 2 poaching)? critical ecosystems, species and cultural values are only being partially addressed Process Requirements for active management of 3 critical ecosystems, species and cultural values are being substantially or fully addressed Reporting progress in protected areas 9 Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps 12. Staff numbers There are no staff 0 Are there enough Staff numbers are inadequate for critical 1 people employed management activities to manage the protected area? Staff numbers are below optimum level for 2 critical management activities Inputs Staff numbers are adequate for the 3 management needs of the site 13. Personnel Problems with personnel management 0 management constrain the achievement of major management objectives Are the staff Problems with personnel management 1 managed well partially constrain the achievement of major enough? management objectives Personnel management is adequate to the 2 Process achievement of major management objectives but could be improved Personnel management is excellent and aids 3 the achievement major management objectives 14. Staff training Staff are untrained 0 Is there enough Staff training and skills are low relative to the 1 training for staff? needs of the protected area Staff training and skills are adequate, but 2 could be further improved to fully achieve the objectives of management Inputs/Process Staff training and skills are in tune with the 3 management needs of the protected area, and with anticipated future needs 15. Current There is no budget for the protected area 0 budget The available budget is inadequate for basic 1 Is the current management needs and presents a serious budget sufficient? constraint to the capacity to manage The available budget is acceptable, but 2 could be further improved to fully achieve effective management Reporting progress in protected areas 10 Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps Inputs The available budget is sufficient and meets 3 the full management needs of the protected area 16. Security of There is no secure budget for the protected 0 budget area and management is wholly reliant on outside or year by year funding Is the budget There is very little secure budget and the 1 secure? protected area could not function adequately without outside funding There is a reasonably secure core budget for 2 the protected area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside funding Inputs There is a secure budget for the protected 3 area and its management needs on a multi- year cycle 17. Management Budget management is poor and significantly 0 of budget undermines effectiveness Budget management is poor and constrains 1 Is the budget effectiveness managed to meet critical Budget management is adequate but could 2 management be improved needs? Budget management is excellent and aids 3 Process effectiveness 18. Equipment There are little or no equipment and facilities 0 Are there There are some equipment and facilities but 1 adequate these are wholly inadequate equipment and facilities? There are equipment and facilities, but still 2 some major gaps that constrain management There are adequate equipment and facilities 3 Process Reporting progress in protected areas 11 Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps 19. Maintenance There is little or no maintenance of equipment 0 of equipment and facilities Is equipment There is some ad hoc maintenance of 1 adequately equipment and facilities maintained? There is maintenance of equipment and 2 facilities, but there are some important gaps in Process maintenance Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3 20. Education There is no education and awareness 0 and awareness programme programme Is there a planned There is a limited and ad hoc education and 1 education awareness programme, but no overall programme? planning for this There is a planned education and awareness 2 Process programme but there are still serious gaps There is a planned and effective education 3 and awareness programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the protected area 21. State and There is no contact between managers and 0 commercial neighbouring official or corporate land users neighbours There is limited contact between managers 1 Is there co- and neighbouring official or corporate land operation with users adjacent land There is regular contact between managers 2 users? and neighbouring official or corporate land users, but only limited co-operation Process There is regular contact between managers 3 and neighbouring official or corporate land users, and substantial co-operation on management 22. Indigenous Indigenous and traditional peoples have no 0 people input into decisions relating to the management of the protected area Reporting progress in protected areas 12 Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps Do indigenous Indigenous and traditional peoples have 1 and traditional some input into discussions relating to peoples resident management but no direct involvement in or regularly using the resulting decisions the PA have input Indigenous and traditional peoples directly 2 to management contribute to some decisions relating to decisions? management Process Indigenous and traditional peoples directly 3 participate in making decisions relating to management 23. Local Local communities have no input into 0 communities decisions relating to the management of the protected area Do local Local communities have some input into 1 communities discussions relating to management but no resident or near direct involvement in the resulting decisions the protected Local communities directly contribute to some 2 area have input decisions relating to management to management Local communities directly participate in 3 decisions? making decisions relating to management Process Additional points There is open communication and trust +1 between local stakeholders and protected area managers Outputs Programmes to enhance local community +1 welfare, while conserving protected area resources, are being implemented 24. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities and services 0 Possible issue for comment: Do visitors damage the protected area? Are visitor facilities Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate 1 for current levels of visitation or are under (for tourists, pilgrims etc) good construction enough? Visitor facilities and services are adequate for 2 current levels of visitation but could be improved Outputs Visitor facilities and services are excellent for 3 current levels of visitation 25. Commercial There is little or no contact between 0 Possible issue for comment: examples tourism managers and tourism operators using the of contributions protected area Reporting progress in protected areas 13 Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps There is contact between managers and 1 Do commercial tourism operators but this is largely confined to tour operators administrative or regulatory matters contribute to There is limited co-operation between 2 protected area managers and tourism operators to enhance management? visitor experiences and maintain protected area values Process There is excellent co-operation between 3 managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, protect values and resolve conflicts 26. Fees Although fees are theoretically applied, they 0 If fees (tourism, are not collected fines) are applied, The fee is collected, but it goes straight to 1 do they help central government and is not returned to the protected area protected area or its environs management? The fee is collected, but is disbursed to the 2 local authority rather than the protected area Outputs There is a fee for visiting the protected area 3 that helps to support this and/or other protected areas 27. Condition Important biodiversity, ecological and cultural 0 Possible issue for comment: It is assessment values are being severely degraded important to provide details of the Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural 1 biodiversity, ecological or cultural Is the protected values are being severely degraded values being affected area being Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural managed values are being partially degraded but the 2 consistent to its most important values have not been objectives? significantly impacted Outcomes Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact 3 Additional points There are active programmes for restoration of degraded areas within the protected area +1 Outputs and/or the protected area buffer zone 28. Access Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) are 0 assessment ineffective in controlling access or use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives Reporting progress in protected areas 14 Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps Is Protection systems are only partially effective 1 access/resource in controlling access or use of the reserve in use sufficiently accordance with designated objectives controlled? Protection systems are moderately effective in 2 controlling access or use of the reserve in Outcomes accordance with designated objectives Protection systems are largely or wholly 3 effective in controlling access or use of the reserve in accordance with designated objectives 29. Economic The existence of the protected area has 0 Possible issue for comment: how does benefit reduced the options for economic national or regional development assessment development of the local communities impact on the protected area? The existence of the protected area has 1 Is the protected neither damaged nor benefited the local area providing economy economic There is some flow of economic benefits to 2 benefits to local local communities from the existence of the communities? protected area but this is of minor significance to the regional economy There is a significant or major flow of 3 Outcomes economic benefits to local communities from activities in and around the protected area (e.g. employment of locals, locally operated commercial tours etc) 30. Monitoring There is no monitoring and evaluation in the 0 and evaluation protected area Are management There is some ad hoc monitoring and 1 activities evaluation, but no overall strategy and/or no monitored regular collection of results against There is an agreed and implemented 2 performance? monitoring and evaluation system but results are not systematically used for management A good monitoring and evaluation system 3 Planning/Process exists, is well implemented and used in adaptive management TOTAL SCORE Reporting progress in protected areas 15