Linking management effectiveness evaluation and periodic reporting: Possibilities and Challenges

1
Linking management effectiveness evaluation and
periodic reportingPossibilities and Challenges

• Sue Stolton, Equilibrium Consultants

2
Summary of issues discussed

• The challenge of reporting conservation status of
  multiple sites
• Experiences in assessing management effectiveness
  of protected areas
• World Bank/WWF Tracking Tool
• Can the experiences from developing and applying
  the TT be incorporated into the WH period
  reporting process?

3
The Challenge of Reporting

• A simple reporting mechanism applicable in data
  rich and data poor areas
• Data collection, reporting and analysing
  processes that are not overly resource intensive
• Information in a form that is simple to analyse
  and results in clear conclusions
• A system which can easily be repeated over time

4
Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas
The assessment of how well an area is being
managed looking at design issues the adequacy
and appropriateness of management systems and
processes and the delivery of protected area
objectives including conservation of values
5
A Challenge Shared

• Reporting on conservation objectives
• Institutions The World Bank
• Funding agencies GEF
• NGOs WWF
• Countries Finland
• States New South Wales, Australia

6
Tools for Assessment

• Detailed tools aimed at developing monitoring and
  assessment at site-level Enhancing our Heritage
  - natural WH sites
• System-wide tools aimed at identifying major
  trends and issues
  WWF RAPPAM and New South Wales, Australia
• Quick-to-use generic tools looking at common
  issues over multiple sites and tracking progress
  over time World Bank/WWF Tracking
  Tool

7
The WCPA Framework is based on the idea that
management follows a process
8
Tracking Tool Experiences

• It is possible to monitor a portfolio of sites
  with a simple well-designed tool
• Does not take long to complete at sites
• Reporting does not have to cost the monitoring
  body a fortune or take up considerable resources
• Meaningful results are possible despite
  variations in data quality between sites

9
Original incentive for developing the Tracking
ToolWorld Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest
Conservation and Sustainable UseTarget 75
million hectares of existing forest protected
areas under improved management to achieve
conservation and development outcomes by 2010
10
Aims of the Tracking Tool

• Harmonised reporting for multiple sites
• Tracking progress over time
• Relatively quick and easy to complete
• Based on expert knowledge available at site
• Easily understood by non-specialists
• Nested within existing reporting systems
• Providing useful information to managers

11
What is the Tracking Tool?

• Datasheet contextual information
• Questionnaire 4 alternative text answers to 30
  question and an associated score to summarise
  progress
• Text fields recording justification for
  assessment, sources used and steps to be taken to
  improve the management issue

12
Sample Question
13
Using the Tracking Tool at Sites

• Protected area managers are asked to complete the
  tracking tool and ideally email results (a web
  based version would be ideal)
• WWF and WB staff are encouraged to work through
  the TT with PA staff when visiting protected areas

14
How has it been used?

• WWFs portfolio of over 200 forest PAs
• WBs portfolio of PAs
• All GEF PA projects
• Adapted for marine and freshwater biomes
• Adapted by TNC for use in Micronesia
• Used in all Indian Tiger Reserves
• Used in forests reserves in Tanzania
• Used to improve management in private reserves in
  South Africa and Namibia

15
37 countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin
America
16
Achievements

• Has grown from measuring one projects target to
  many adaptations and uptake by major funding
  bodies
• Biggest global data set of PA effectiveness
  information using one system
• Improving effectiveness from site level to global
  level

17
Some findings from WWF

• Relative success issues relating to legal
  establishment, biodiversity condition assessment,
  boundary demarcation, design and objective
  setting
• Relative failure activities relating to people
  (both local communities and visitors), management
  planning, monitoring and evaluation, budget and
  education and awareness

18
Minimum Requirements for Effective ManagementWWF
proposals drawing on TT results

• Legal designation
• Demarcation of protected area boundaries
• Clear management objectives
• Operational plan
• Operational budget
• Monitoring plan

19
Can the lessons learned from the development and
application of the Tracking Tool contribute to
the period of reflection on Periodic Reporting
and the site level questionnaire?
20
(No Transcript)
21
Two Tools Shared Needs
22
(No Transcript)
23
Similarities and Differences

• WH assess conservation status focus on future
  activities strengthen co-operation
• TT track/monitor progress of conservation targets
  and plan portfolio interventions
• Review process in place
• Overlap of questionnaire topics

24
Similarities and Differences

• TT based on internationally recognised structure
  for reporting management effectiveness (WCPA
  framework)
• WH 140 questions
• TT 30 questions plus data sheet

25
TT Adaptability

• The TT was originally designed for use in
  terrestrial, primarily forest landscapes
• It has already been adapted to marine and
  freshwater environments
• Adaptable because it is based around assessing
  elements of the management cycle and evaluating
  the effectiveness of management against agreed
  objectives

26
TT Strengths

• Multiple choice allows for more consistent
  analysis of answers over time
• Next steps section provides some guidance for
  adaptive management
• Questions are specifically linked to achievement
  of objectives
• Aimed at managers needs
• Short and relatively quick to complete

27
TT Limitations

• Not an independent assessment
• Questions are not weighted
• Limited evaluation of outcomes

However good management is, if values continue to
decline, the protected area objectives are not
being met. Therefore the question on condition
assessment has disproportionate importance.
28
The Importance of Monitoring and Assessment

• The TT is a simple tool to allow managers to
  report on their sites management effectiveness
• All protected areas and certainly those on the
  WH list should also have detailed monitoring
  and assessment systems
• The EoH project is helping to deliver this in WH
  sites

29
The Information Iceberg/Ideal
Public Environment
Assessment Report
Scientific Environment
Monitoring Report
Tanzania Carnivore Centre
SENAPA Ecological Monitoring
Serengeti Biodiversity Project
Rhino Project
30
What if?
The lessons learned from developing and applying
the TT were incorporated into the WH period
reporting process
31
Possible Next Steps

• Literature review and survey of the different TT
  uses and adaptations to highlight best practices
• Discussion on core set of questions and use of
  WCPA framework structure
• Research and dialogue into adaptations to reflect
  cultural sites
• Development and testing of final product
• Protocols/guidelines for reporting

32
The Tracking Tool is available in English,
French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Russian,
Bahasa Indonesia, Lao, Khmer, Vietnamese and
Mongolian
Download the English version from
http//www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/forests/
our_solutions/protection/news/index.cfm?uNewsID20
774