Post on 29-Mar-2015
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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?
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
A Challenge Shared
Reporting on conservation objectives
• Institutions: The World Bank• Funding agencies: GEF• NGOs: WWF• Countries: Finland• States: New South Wales, Australia
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
The WCPA Framework is based on the idea that management follows a process
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
37 countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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?
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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)
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
Two Tools: Shared Needs
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
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
Similarities and Differences
• TT based on internationally recognised structure for reporting management effectiveness (WCPA framework)
• WH: 140 questions• TT: 30 questions plus data sheet
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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.
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
Assessment Report
Monitoring Report
Tanzania Carnivore Centre
SENAPA Ecological Monitoring
Serengeti Biodiversity Project Rhino Project
The Information Iceberg/Ideal
Scientific Environment
Public Environme
nt
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
What if?
The lessons learned from developing and applying the TT were incorporated into the WH
period reporting process
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006
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