World Heritage Committee, Thirtieth Session, Vilnius, Lithuania Tracking Management Effectiveness in...

World Heritage Committee, Thirtieth Session, Vilnius, Lithuania

Tracking Management Effectiveness in Multiple Sites

Sue Stolton, Equilibrium, UK


• This presentation is about a simple methodology – known as the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool - that has been developed to track portfolios of sites

• In 15 minutes it has to be a simple presentation• But creating simple things can be complex• I won’t be telling you about the years it took to develop,

test, review and revise • Or give substantive detail of the results of analysis

using the tool


• I will be giving a brief description of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

• Say a little about how it has been used

• Give a short analysis comparing the Tracking Tool with the Periodic Reporting Section II

• Some suggestion about how it could be adapted for WH use


The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool is ‘fit for purpose’

• Developed to assess agreed and clearly articulated objectives


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


Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool Objectives

• Tracking improvements in management to achieve conservation and development outcomes

• Harmonised reporting for multiple sites• Relatively quick and easy to complete • Based on expert knowledge available at site • Easily understood by non-specialists • Consistent with existing reporting systems• Provides useful information for site managers


How has it been used?

• WWF’s portfolio of 200 forest protected areas• World Bank’s portfolio of protected areas• All Global Environment Facility protected areas

projects• Adapted for marine and freshwater biomes• Adapted for use in all protected areas in China• Used in all Indian Tiger Reserves • Used to improve management in private

reserves in South Africa and Namibia


What is the Tracking Tool?

1. Datasheet: contextual information including objectives and threats

2. Questionnaire: 4 alternative text answers to 30 question and an associated score to summarise progress

3. Associated text fields with each question: recording justification for assessment, sources used and steps to be taken to improve the management issue


• Based on the management cycle of a site• WCPA Framework for assessing management effectiveness


Section II: Period Reporting Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

(2) Justification for Inscription 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 Education and awareness programme (20)

(14) Factors Affecting the Property (SoC) Condition assessment (27); Access assessment (28)

(15) Monitoring Monitoring and evaluation (30)

Specific World Heritage questions (16, 17, 18, 19)

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

Issue Criteria Score Comments Next steps

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

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

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


Similarities

• WH: assess conservation status; focus on future activities; strengthen co-operation

• TT: track/monitor progress of conservation targets; plan portfolio interventions

• WH/TT: Overlap of questionnaire topics


Differences

• TT: based on internationally recognised structure for reporting protected area management effectiveness (WCPA Framework)

• TT: 30 questions plus data sheet• WH: Natural and cultural site• WH: 140 questions (nearly 500 over all regions)


Tracking Tool: 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

• Short and relatively quick to complete• Standardised language thus easy to translate


Tracking Tool: Limitations

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

However good management is, if values continue to decline, the objectives are not being met. Therefore

the question on condition assessment has disproportionate importance.


Tracking Tool: Achievements

• Has grown from measuring one project’s targets to many adaptations and global uptake

• Largest global data set of protected area effectiveness information using one system

• Improving effectiveness from site to global level


Can the Tracking Tool be adapted to fit the needs of WH reporting?

• Step 1: Clear objectives about what Periodic Reporting can and cannot achieve

• Step 2: Adapt Tracking Tool to reflect WH requirements and in particular cultural sites

• Step 3: Test revised Tracking Tool in key cultural, natural and mixed sites


Cultural Challenges

• Challenge 1: sites are not managed by one single management unit

• Challenge 2: sites fragmented sometimes over large areas

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 severallanguage version from: http://www.panda.org

World Heritage Committee, Thirtieth Session, Vilnius, Lithuania Tracking Management Effectiveness in...

Documents

Transcript of World Heritage Committee, Thirtieth Session, Vilnius, Lithuania Tracking Management Effectiveness in...