Management effectiveness evaluation: WCPA Framework overview.

Management Management effectiveness effectiveness evaluation: evaluation:

WCPA WCPA Framework Framework overviewoverview

Management Effectiveness Capacity Building Workshop for Sub-Saharan Africa

A short history of Management Effectiveness Evaluation

• First raised at Bali WPC 1983• Call for action at Caracas WPC 1992• Independent systems development (Parks in

Peril, WWF/CATIE, TNC and others, various park management agencies)

• WCPA Working Group 1996 and Task Force 1998

• Publication of WCPA Best Practice Guidelines (2000)

• WCPA Thematic Program on Management Effectiveness

• Vth World Parks Congress workshop (2003)• CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas

Goals and Targets (2004)


The CBD CommitmentGoal 4.2 – To evaluate and improve

the effectiveness of protected areas management

Target: By 2010, frameworks for monitoring, evaluating and reporting protected areas management effectiveness at sites, national and regional systems, and transboundary protected area levels adopted and implemented by Parties.


Suggested activities of the Parties

4.2.1 Develop and adopt, by 2006, appropriate methods, standards, criteria and indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of protected area management and governance, and set up a related database, taking into account the IUCN-WCPA framework for evaluating management effectiveness, and other relevant methodologies, which should be adapted to local conditions.

4.2.2 Implement management effectiveness evaluations of at least 30 percent of each Party’s protected areas by 2010 and of national protected area systems and, as appropriate, ecological networks.


Suggested activities of the Parties

4.2.3 Include information resulting from evaluation of protected areas management effectiveness in national reports under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

4.2.4 Implement key recommendations arising from site- and system-level management effectiveness evaluations, as an integral part of adaptive management strategies.


The WCPA Framework• Working group established

with WCPA in 1996• Draft framework developed in

1997• Task Force established in

1998 with broad regional and organisational representation

• Partnership with IUCN/WWF Forest Innovations project

• Workshops, pilot studies and reviews

• Launch of guidelines at World Conservation Congress in 2000

• Revised Guidelines published 2006

Developing countries

Developed countries

Parks CanadaOntario: State of Parks research framework

University of Benin:Used for research and training

Australia:Teaching material for project planning and land management

New South Wales National Parksand Wildlife Service: State of Parks reporting and evaluation programme. Nearly 700 PAs involved

Parks Australia:Used in support of performance evaluation approachNorth Carolina State University:

Reference for teaching

Broads Authority (National Park) England: Applied toolkit successfully; used for M&E of Broads Management Plan

Management Consultant, USA:Evaluation of proposed World Heritage Sites

Sanparks, South Africa:Future use in planning and evaluation

Finnish Park Service: Development of National Parks evaluation systemcriteria and indicators

WWF, India: Evaluation of Kalakad Mundanthorai Tiger Reserve

University of Northern BC,Canada: Parks planning course

Hungary PAN Parks FoundationWWF: “Major highlight of activities”

WCPA EE

Consultant: Drafting legislation for PAs inEquatorial Guinea, Canary Islands, Cape Verde

Tanzania: Successful application in Mbwendi Park

GEF: Adapted for all biodiversity sites to support work of GEF Biodiversity Program

Bhutan: Development of new PAs; improved management of new parks

Eastern Europe: Adopted by PA managers in region

Italy: Restructured Parks to use framework

Tested in IUCN-UNESCO World Heritage Site project for adoption in the WH Convention and as framework for the World Heritage Endangered Sites list

Parks Canada Agency:Development of performance measures for marine PAs

Galapagos, Ecuador:Development of process to evaluate parks management

UNDP: Used in guidelines for UNDP PA projects

Trinidad & Tobago: Guide for management review of small PAs

CNAP, Cuba: Used to implement new methodology for PAs

Policy /Legislation /Management

Science /Knowledge

Included in CBD Programme of Work on PAs at COP 7

WWF/World Bank: Tracking tool for sites in Forest Programme; to adapt priorities. Also for funded projects in conservation areas

Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service:Reinforced new evaluation programme

Nigeria National Parks Service:Applying some principles to new national parks and in review of older parks

Uganda Wildlife Authority: Applied in all Uganda protected areas. Especially successful in Bwindi Impenetrable National ParkWorld Heritage Learning Site

Application of Framework


WCPA assessment framework

Effectiveness Appropriate-ness

Effective-ness

EfficiencyEconomyAppropriate-ness

StatusFocus of evaluation

Impacts: effects of management in relation to objectives

Results of management actions Services and products

Suitability of management processes

Resourcing of agency Resourcing of site

PA legislation and policyPA system designReserve designManagement planning

SignificanceThreatsVulnerability

National policy Engagement of Partners

Criteria

OutcomesWhat did we achieve?

OutputsWhat were the results?

ProcessHow do we go about it?

InputsWhat do we need?

Planning Where do we want to be?

ContextWhere are we now?

Elements

of evaluation


What are the three most important

things to measure when looking at management effectiveness?




Effective-ness










Criteria







Elements

of evaluation


Context• Significance/Values• Threats• Vulnerability• National policy • Engagement of Partners

The context review, although not an analysis of management, provides information that puts management decisions into context and allows them to be assessed based on biological, cultural and political information.


What are the important values of the site?

• Biophysical– Biodiversity– Ecological

communities– Ecological

processes– Geodiversity– Geomorphological

processes– Other natural

values

• Socio-economic– Cultural heritage

• Indigenous• Historic• Religious

– Recreation– Tourism– Livelihoods

• Resources• Jobs

– Education


What are the type and severity of

threats?


What is the level of policy and funding support from

government?


Who are the key stakeholders and what are their interests?


How information is used: • Information on values/significance and

stresses/threats is used to help identify desired management outcomes by identifying or clarifying the key values to be protected at the site, threats to those values and hence providing a focus to the management of the site.

• Information on stakeholders/partners and their level of engagement is used to assess what impacts others are having at the site and whether more effective participation is needed or if new partnerships should be formed to support the site’s management.

• Information on national context can assist in understanding how the broader policy and legislative context affects management of the site.




Effective-ness










Criteria







Elements

of evaluation


What is the legal status of the protected area?


Does the design of the site allow it to function effectively?


Does the site have clear management planning?


How the information is used:• Information on legal status and design of sites

can identify management constraints (and strengths) relating to the design of the protected area and its relationship with surrounding land use. While managers have limited capacity to change these characteristics, they can seek to overcome difficulties by compensatory management.

• Information on planning assesses whether planning instruments are sufficient to guide management of the site.




Effective-ness










Criteria







Elements

of evaluation


Has the Site got enough resources?


How the information is used:• Information on the extent of resources

available for management allows changes in staff and resource availability to be tracked over time.

• Estimation of need allows identification of shortfalls in staff, funds and equipment in relation to planned management activities. More objective estimations of needs can strengthen proposals for funding from government, donors and other sources of support.




Effective-ness










Criteria







Elements

of evaluation


Are management standards defined?


How the information is used: • Adapting the rating system for process

indicators can provide the opportunity for park managers and stakeholders to define the desired standards for management practices at the site.

• Rating these indicators provides an understanding of current management practices in the light of these standards and a means to measure improvement in management and progress in actions.




Effective-ness










Criteria







Elements

of evaluation

Has the management plan/work programme been implemented?


What are the results/outputs of site management?


How the information is used:• Monitoring the implementation of the

management plan or work program, which can identify where management is directing effort and what areas of management activity may be being neglected

• Measures of visitor use or other externally generated requirements can assist in understanding changing demands on park management.




Effective-ness










Criteria







Elements

of evaluation

Biodiversity health objectivesOverview of each target and a breakdown of status and trends of individual indicators


Threat abatement objectives


Social and cultural and other objectives


How the information is used:• Information on the status of key protected

area values and the extent to which threats to these values have been controlled or removed (the most significant component of a management effectiveness evaluation)

• A basis for focussing monitoring programs on key issues and information needs

• Information on other aspects of management (e.g context, planning, input, process and output) can provide explanatory information that helps in interpreting outcomes and planning appropriate responses to problems identified in outcome assessment.

Inpute.g. Funds from donor organisation; expertise from external scientists and involvement of local community.

Outpute.g. Successful and self-sufficient fish-farm established with no negative environmental effects.

Processe.g. Community supports and successfully operates aquaculture venture

Outcomese.g. Income security established for community; no further reef bombing and conservation of reef system.

AssumptionCommunity supports project and donor funds will continue until project becomes self-sustaining.

AssumptionCommunity adopts programme and environmental conditions remain relatively stable.

AssumptionPeople will not seek further illegal income if they have a basic income from fish farm; community stewardship level is high; environmental conditions remain relatively stable and international laws protecting reef can be enforced (no outside fishing vessels).

Contexte.g. Marine park with a very

high biodiversity values and a poor local community dependent on marine

resources

Planninge.g. Goal: to restore reef biodiversity and enhance community well-being.Objectives: to stop reef bombing and establish alternative income source for local community by development of aquaculture


Questions?Questions?


Thank youThank you

Management effectiveness evaluation: WCPA Framework overview.

Documents

Transcript of Management effectiveness evaluation: WCPA Framework overview.