Transcript 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:

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 Use
Target: 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 information
2. 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
Sample Question
Issue
Criteria
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
Planning/
Process
Score
Comments
Next steps
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 designation
2. Demarcation of protected area
boundaries
3. Clear management objectives
4. Operational plan
5. Operational budget
6. 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
15.01
Is 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
Issue
Criteria
Score
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
No
Comments
Next steps
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.
Yes
11.04
Are these facilities adequate?
11.05
If no, what facilities is the site in need of?
Issue
Criteria
24. Visitor
facilities
Are visitor
facilities (for
tourists,
pilgrims etc)
good enough?
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
Outputs
Score
Comments
No
Next steps
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
The Information Iceberg/Ideal
Assessment Report
Public
Environment
Scientific
Environment
Monitoring Report
Tanzania Carnivore
Centre
SENAPA Ecological
Monitoring
Rhino Project
Serengeti Biodiversity
Project
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/ab
out_wwf/what_we_do/for
ests/our_solutions/protec
tion/news/index.cfm?uNe
wsID=20774
Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2-3 March 2006