Assessing Co-management in Protected Areas

in the Northern Territory: Lessons for Marine Protected Areas

Central Land Council

Arturo Izurieta, Natasha Stacey & Stephen Garnett

Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods

Outline

• Background and Rationale

• Action Research Process to develop a Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation (PME) Framework

• Results to Build a PME Framework in NT Parks for assessing co-management– Management themes and indicators– Evaluation framework– Costs and benefits

• Lessons and challenges

• Partnership not equal in power and capacities

• Poor shared objectives for management• Past focus on biodiversity outcomes• Process can be as important as outcomes• Poor Communication (between and

amongst partners)• Management has to be achieved in a cross

cultural partnership• Achieving social, economic and cultural

outcomes are new fields in park management.

• Weak or absent monitoring and evaluation practices and what it costs

Issues to consider in Co-Management of Protected

Areas

Why Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation in Co-Management?

• M&E should balance the assessment of biophysical outcomes with partnership arrangements and processes linked to cultural interests and rights of partners (Ross et al 2004, Plummer & Armitage 2007) Bauman and Smyth 2007)

• M&E should be ‘participatory’ so it contributes positively to management, trust building, knowledge sharing through learning by doing (Izurieta et. al 2011)

• PME has a role in empowerment – addresses power imbalances (Armitage 2003, Olsson et al 2004, Berkes 2009, Cundill & Fabricus 2010, Mahanty et al 2007)

Project objectives:

• Identify whether Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) enhances the benefits of Joint Management

• Determine how PME can be implemented cost effectively in a partnership with significant differences in perspectives and power

• How to scale up PME of Joint Management to all (27) Parks and Reserves in the NT

‘Does monitoring and evaluation improve joint management?

The case of national parks in the NT’.

Partners and pilot study areas

Central Land Council

Participatory PWS and

Traditional Owners with

NLC/CLC

Participatory monitoring and evaluation phases

adapted from Hockings et.al 2006)

Results 1: Themes & indicators identified

Joint Management Theme Indicators

Governance (planning and making decisions together)

Decision-making and process satisfaction

Representation and participation satisfaction

Relationships and communications among partners

External partnerships

Governance training

Joint Management theme Indicators

Managing Country(Natural and Cultural Heritage )

•Cultural site protection•Natural resource and biodiversity management•Traditional knowledge transfer•Combined use of Traditional and western knowledge•Resource use and availability•Infrastructure availability•Park management training

Results 1: Themes & indicators identified

Results 1: Themes & indicators identified

Joint Management Theme Indicator

Benefits to traditional owners (jobs, training, business opportunities, money story)

Employment levels

Associated enterprises

Business training

Results 1: Themes & indicators identified

Joint Management Theme Indicator

Managing Visitors (Looking after visitors)

Information availability

Visitor satisfaction

Number of joint management indicators classified as capital assets and as management cycle elements

Results 2: PME Evaluation Method

VERY GOOD

GOOD

NOT SO GOOD

BAD

Results 3: Cost of M&E

• Costs of PME of 40% of all jointly managed parks were less than 1,5% when compared to the over all costs of Joint Management

Expense

2008-

2009

2009-

2010

2010-

2011 Total

Government planning 1,312 404 1,376 3,092

Joint management

coordination1,483 835 457 2,775

Indigenous

employment1,879 1,182 613 3,674

Land Council

engagement202 500 406 1,108

Monitoring and

Evaluation35 51 52 138

Total 4,911 2,972 2,904 10,787

Lease payments 38 48 1,351 1,437

Results 3: Cost of PM&E

• Savings can be made through integrating PM&E of joint management with other joint management activities

• The preparation and validation phases of a PM&E process are the most expensive

Cost in AU$’000s

PM&E and joint

management

planning

conducted

separately

PM&E and

joint

management

planning

conducted

together

Preparation of M&E and first

joint management meeting

75 69

Data Collection 19 19

Analysis and Interpretation 23 23

Validation/feed-back, and second

joint management meeting

41 27

TOTAL 158 138

Benefits of PME• Process has provided opportunity

for partners toHave a voice in what is

monitored (e.g. indicators) and how (rather than being subjects of the evaluation)

& how the parks are managed.• Promoted closer working

relationship in all parks (although some conflict remains)

• Greater objectivity, ownership and confidence in joint management

Challenges• Narrow perspective on what is ‘joint

management’ (Parks vs Aboriginal values).

• Still barriers to participation of partners (Aboriginal people)

• Still a strong focus on achieving biodiversity rather than social/cultural outcomes

• Limited human and financial capacity to engage in joint management by all partners

• PME is a new process and requires further institutionalisation in day to day operation

Summary• PME Framework we trialled in terrestrial parks could

very well be applied to MPAs

• PME was not as expensive as envisaged

• Assessment scale using colours (‘traffic lights’) has proven to be appropriate in across cultural situation

• PME gave prominence to social, cultural and economic outcomes in contrast to biophysical indicators/outcomes

• Integration of PME from the start into joint management generate cost savings and more opportunities to build knowledge on monitoring and evaluation, processes, inputs, outputs and outcomes

Thank you

• Arrernte, Wardaman, Wulna, and Anangu Traditional Owners from the four pilot parks

• NT Parks and Wildlife Service• Northern Land Council• Central Land Council • Australia Research Council• RIEL/Charles Darwin University• Photos: A. Izurieta & NT-PWS

Acknowledgements

www.riel.cdu.edu.auarturo.izurieta@cdu.edu.au