Integrated Management Effectiveness tool (IMET) & the

BIOPAMA Regional Protected Areas Observatories *****

Improving management effectiveness of PAs and PAs networks

BIOPAMA

– RIS: framework of organized information in support to

decision-making –Bridges between stackeholders

INFORMATION TO PROVIDE ANSWERS

Information flow • Top-down (to provide organized and oriented

information and analysis) and

• Bottom-up (to provide information and priorities on context, management and

governance) to provide answers to decision making

Self-assessments, Information flows & Action

HQs : Collect & Validate field assessments

Observatory : Store & Analyze available info

Protected area

… to improve management

Action

Self-assessment

One tool among many others

Integrated Management Effectiveness tool (IMET) & Regional Protected Areas Observatories

improving management effectiveness of PAs and PAs networks

Structured result-focused and proactive approach towards

prioritisation and decision-making

BIOPAMA IMET • A tool between multiple tools for harvesting

and organising information • Organised for a common understanding of

the problems to solve and solutions to adopt • Structured towards a result-focused and a

proactive approach towards prioritisation and decision-making

• Consolidate Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation system

Allowing to compare and to follow situations over time Supporting better understanding of situations and the improvement of management effectiveness of PAs and PAs networks

The framework for assessing management effectiveness of PA

BIOPAMA IMET - Rationale

• Management of protected areas is complex • It is essential to:

– invest in better decisions-making & structuring information systems

– strengthen the coordination of the different management aspects towards well-defined result-oriented actions

• NOT a new tool: it associates others tools (eg. the “Threats calculator”) and many indicators of METT, Global Study, EoH and RAPPAM

• NOT difficult: – Logical links between various elements – Statistical analysis – Visualisation guide

• However: – Each individual assessment requires the

guidance/support of trained coaches – 3 days are required for a 1st compilation at PA level

BIOPAMA IMET is …

BIOPAMA IMET Framework

IMET a modular tool

Based on our experience, what we normally see:

Context

Planning

Inputs

Process

Outputs

Outcome

ss

To what we should tend…

Context

Planning

Inputs

Process

Outputs

Outcomes

Beyond data collection & scores achieved, IMET provides a framework for…

• To sustain biodiversity conservation efforts at field level • The Green List process • PAs-HQs dialogue for site and national level:

– assessments – objectives and benchmarks setting – prioritization of interventions – Operational planning

• Capacity building throughout the overall PA management cycle • Supporting an integrated “Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation”

approach

PA Status Decision Support System

RRIS (JRC) - ROs Analisys PDF

Summary Information

Context - PAME

Monitoring plans Analysis

Target, indicators, benchmark

s

Suggested Actions

Mayumba NP Threatened Available Available Available Synthetic

report To be

adapted WP to be adapted

not available partly available available

Legend of information

Context Planning Inputs Process Outputs Outcomes

• Positive expansion on key marine conservation aspects and on the pelagic habitat

• Key terrestrial habitats and species undertaken

• Excellent management plan

• Surface to enlarge

• Shape to improve

• Law enforcement to improve

• Good information on key aspects

• Low human and financial resources (32% of resources scheduled)

• 95% of NP under control

• Good internal process

• Weak communities implication

• Low level of expected outputs (20%) in raison of low financial resources and time consuming of year

• Positive conservation trend

• Low possibilities of intervention against pollution and the project for the main harbour of Gabon

• Low scores on communities achievements

Park Red List a proposal of Dr M. Murray (example)

PA Management Effectiveness estimated = 44,9

Operational recommendations at PA level: answers for prioritization and operational planning

Question: What are the weak aspects of the elements of the cycle of PAs management to improve in the protected areas? (Ex. Central Africa: GABON, Mayumba NP)

IMET - scaling-up at “PA system” level First exercise of scaling-up data from the IMET tool

General analysis of the PAs framework, tool of analysis: 1. “Grouping” PAs with ‘sufficiently’ similar (homogeneous) scores for the 6 different elements of management cycle 2. “Ranking”, to identify targeted benchmarks, which should be reached or exceed by the PAs in specific indicators 3. “IMET Index” as average of effectiveness in the six elements of the management cycle – Possible generation of a “METT equivalent index”

4. “Averaging”, to define for each system the “average PA” based on IMET scores

5. “Indicators of non-response” to determine the deviation for each area between the raw score and the score based on imputed data. 6. “Specific analysis” of the key indicators based on the scores achieved and on the assessment of the underpinning questions 7. “Visualisation” of the results as a basis for “operations-oriented” discussions with the national authorities 8. “Cross analysis”, to establish consistency between values of related indicators (work in progress)

Burundi protected areas network, Grouping – Ranking – Averaging – Cross analysis

Protected areas Context Planning Inputs Processes Outputs Outcomes IMET scores

Groups average

4G-Makamba 51,1 24,4 17,0 20,0 33,3 50,3 32,7

35,5

4G-Gisagara 60,4 24,8 23,4 23,7 33,3 36,6 33,7 4G-Monge 56,4 19,4 17,5 30,0 33,3 48,6 34,2 4G-Vyanda Forest 57,5 22,7 22,4 28,2 33,3 51,6 36,0 4G-Malagarazi 65,2 34,3 20,8 27,7 33,3 35,8 36,2 4G-Kigwena Forest 65,2 24,5 25,6 29,8 38,9 58,1 40,4 3G-Nyakazu Gorge 63,6 38,4 25,8 32,1 38,9 53,3 42,0

42,4 3G-Rumonge 57,0 40,3 20,5 37,6 45,8 51,3 42,1 3G-Rusizi 53,0 38,9 30,9 36,2 40,0 53,5 42,1 3G-Chutes Karera 52,0 41,5 24,1 37,4 44,4 56,5 42,6 3G-Lac Rwihinda 64,2 46,8 20,5 37,1 50,0 40,6 43,2 2G-Kibira 61,0 58,8 36,4 44,7 46,7 50,3 49,6 49,7 2G-Ruvubu 63,7 55,9 31,5 42,9 50,0 55,0 49,8 1G-Bururi 74,2 67,0 58,3 55,4 66,7 78,0 66,6 66,6

Value visualisation for categories: 0 1–32 33–50 51–100

Averaging

Ranking

Grouping

Cross Analysis

Burundi protected areas network, IMET Ranking

Management Context Conclusions and Possible operational suggestions

The analysis shows: • considerable convergence in values for the sub-indicator Classification, Habitats and Key species; • divergence in values for the sub-indicator Climate Change and Ecosystem services between the groups 1–2

and groups 3–4; • sub-indicator Governance with strong leader position of only one PA (Bururi) followed by very low values

for the others PAs; • the Political and civil environment indicator is extremely high in contrast with the large values of threats. • the PAs of groups 1 and 2 show more equilibrate global analysis than the PAs of the groups 3 and 4 • high values on key species, habitats and classification but really low for governance, climate change and

ecosystem services, probably because the PAs are not used to manage these elements of a protected area

Protected Areas Management context

Value and Importance

Political and civil

environment Threats

4G-Makamba 51,1 43,0 73,3 -63,1 3G-Chutes Karera 52,0 38,8 77,3 -60,1 3G-Rusizi 53,0 35,4 71,5 -48,0 4G-Monge 56,4 43,1 93,1 -67,1 3G-Rumonge 57,0 41,7 68,2 -38,9 4G-Vyanda Forest 57,5 42,4 84,2 -54,0 4G-Gisagara 60,4 44,9 73,1 -36,7 3G-Nyakazu Gorge 63,6 44,7 90,5 -44,4 2G-Ruvubu 63,7 57,3 81,3 -47,3 3G-Lac Rwihinda 64,2 56,7 77,2 -41,3 4G-Malagarazi 65,2 46,3 90,3 -41,2 4G-Kigwena Forest 65,2 46,0 80,7 -31,1 2G-Kibira 69,3 62,9 50,0 -29,9 1G-Bururi 74,2 69,2 85,3 -31,9

Value visualisation for categories:

0 1–32 33–50 51–100 0 -1/-32 -33/-50 -51/-100

Management Context Conclusions and Possible operational suggestions

Possible operational suggestions are: • to assess the reasons of low score on biodiversity (key

species and habitats), • to support the capacity building on climate change

effects and ecosystem services management for a better analysis and right scoring.

• to check with cross analysis the consistency between “Political and Civil Environment” and “Threats”,

• to ensure better consistency between the three indicators of the Management Context

Burundi Global analysis Conclusions and Possible operational suggestions Possible improvement in protected areas management in Burundi Groups

1 and 2 Group 3 Group 4

Refine analysis to better specify the potentiality of the PA and on this basis to acting simple and realistic elements of vision and objectives on which to elaborate management and work plans.

P1 P2 P2

Strengthen management skills essentially in action training aimed at:

i. identification, analysing manageable actions, a proactive approach oriented results

ii. the internalisation of management tools such as: a. planning – monitoring – evaluation b. problem solving, decision-making c. prioritisation and management with limited resources

FT P1 P1

Develop the management of ecosystem services (knowledge, conservation and enhancement) to promote:

i. payments for ecosystem services rendered ii. divulge the PAs’ importance through the development of environmental and

environmental education iii. tourism based on ecosystem services associated with biodiversity

FT P3 P3

Promote the governance of PAs to:

i. strengthen the management of ecosystem services iv. reduce the threats v. preserve the cultural values of the minority and disadvantaged autochthonous

populations [see pygmies]

FT FT FT

Legend: Px = Priority (1–2–3 in order of decreasing priority)  – FT = Following in time

The BIOPAMA Observatories • Support site level and PAs networks analysis,

relying on information collected through specific campaigns (IMET or other) and retrieved from other partners and data providers;

• Provide operational recommendations to decision-makers

• Support the mobilization of the Action Fund component

• Enforce analysis capacities at PA and at central level

Thank you for your attention!