Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006 Linking management effectiveness evaluation and periodic reporting:

Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006

Linking management effectiveness evaluation and

periodic reporting:Possibilities and Challenges

Sue Stolton, Equilibrium Consultants


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?


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


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


A Challenge Shared

Reporting on conservation objectives

• Institutions: The World Bank• Funding agencies: GEF• NGOs: WWF• Countries: Finland• States: New South Wales, Australia


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


The WCPA Framework is based on the idea that management follows a process


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


Original incentive for developing the Tracking Tool

World 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


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


What is the Tracking Tool?

1. Datasheet: contextual information2. Questionnaire: 4 alternative text

answers to 30 question and an associated score to summarise progress

3. Text fields: recording justification for assessment, sources used and steps to be taken to improve the management issue


Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps

30. Monitoring and evaluation Are management activities monitored against performance?Planning/Process

There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area

0

There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results

1

There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system but results are not systematically used for management

2

A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and used in adaptive management

3

Sample Question


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


How has it been used?• WWF’s portfolio of over 200 forest PAs• WB’s 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


37 countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America


Achievements

• Has grown from measuring one project’s 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


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


Minimum Requirements for Effective Management

WWF proposals drawing on TT results

1. Legal designation2. Demarcation of protected area

boundaries3. Clear management objectives4. Operational plan5. Operational budget6. Monitoring plan


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?


Section II: SoC of Specific WH properties Tracking Tool

(2) Justification for Inscription (statement of significance) Protected area objectives (4)

(3) Boundary and buffer zone Protected area boundary demarcation (6)

(4) Authenticity and Integrity of the site Protected area design (5)

(5) Management Resource management (11)

(6) Protection Legal status (1); Protected area regulations(2); Law enforcement (3)

(7) Management plans Management plan (7); Regular work plan (8)

(8) Financial resources Current budget (15); Security of budget (16); Management of budget (17); Fees (26)

(9) Staffing levels (human resources) Staff numbers (12); Personnel management (13)

(10) Expertise and Training in Conservation and Management

Staff training (14)

(11) Visitors Visitor facilities (24); Commercial tourism (25)

(12) Scientific studies Resource inventory (9); Research (10)

(13) Education, Information and Awareness Building Education and awareness programme (20)

(14) Factors Affecting the Property (State of Conservation) Condition assessment (27); Access assessment (28)

(15) Monitoring Monitoring and evaluation (30)

Equipment (18); Maintenance of equipment (19)

State and commercial neighbours (21); Indigenous people (22); Local communities (23)

Economic benefit assessment (29)


Two Tools: Shared Needs


30. Monitoring and evaluation Are management activities monitored against performance?Planning/Process

There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area

0

There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results

1

There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system but results are not systematically used for management

2

A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and used in adaptive management

3

15.01Is there a formal monitoring program for the site?

15.02

If yes, please describe it, indicating what factors or variables are being monitored and by what process.

Yes No


11.03 Please briefly describe the visitor facilities at the site.

11.04 Are these facilities adequate?

11.05 If no, what facilities is the site in need of?

Yes No


24. Visitor facilities Are visitor facilities (for tourists, pilgrims etc) good enough?

Outputs

There are no visitor facilities and services

0

Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation or are under construction

1

Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation but could be improved

2

Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation

3


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


Similarities and Differences

• TT based on internationally recognised structure for reporting management effectiveness (WCPA framework)

• WH: 140 questions• TT: 30 questions plus data sheet


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


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


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.


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


Assessment Report

Monitoring Report

Tanzania Carnivore Centre

SENAPA Ecological Monitoring

Serengeti Biodiversity Project Rhino Project

The Information Iceberg/Ideal

Scientific Environment

Public Environme

nt


What if?

The lessons learned from developing and applying the TT were incorporated into the WH

period reporting process


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


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/protec

tion/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=20774

Documents

Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006 Linking management effectiveness evaluation and periodic reporting: