REVIEW : TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE … · 2019. 12. 23. · 1 | REVIEW: TECHNICAL...

DISCLAIMER

The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the

United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

REVIEW : TECHNICAL GUIDELINES

FOR EVALUATING THE MANAGEMENT

EFFECTIVENESS OF AQUATIC,

COASTAL AND SMALL ISLAND

CONSERVATION AREAS (E-KKP3K)

1 | REVIEW: TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF AQUATIC COASTAL

AND SMALL ISLAND CONSERVATION AREAS USAID.GOV

BACKGROUND

As one of the largest archipelagic countries in the

world, the Republic of Indonesia has committed to

designate 20 million hectares of its territorial waters as

conservation areas by 2020. Additionally, the

Government of Indonesia (GoI) has committed to

manage these areas effectively, not just increase the

number of “paper parks.” In 2012, the Ministry of

Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) through

Directorate General of Marine, Coastal, and Small

Islands (now: Directorate General of Marine Spatial

Planning) issued decree No 44/KP3K/2012 on

Technical Guidelines for Evaluating the Management

Effectiveness of Aquatic, Coastal and Small Island

Conservation Areas (E-KKP3K).

Since the release of the decree, the tool has been used

by stakeholders to evaluate the management

implementation of marine protected areas (MPAs).

Beyond serving as a monitoring tool, E-KKP3K also

provides guidelines for MPAs area managers to develop

priority management programs. After nearly five years of implementation, a number of issues related

with enhancing effectiveness of conservation areas have emerged:

• Some indicators do not provide sufficiently detailed instruction on how to manage marine

conservation areas, for example minimum facilities standards (type and minimum number of

required facilities for an office to be able to run) and personnel (how many personnel with what

kind of minimum capacity) needed to manage a conservation area.

• Although the tool provides types of management program/activities required for MPA manager

action, there are no timeline guidelines or requirements for such activities. For example, what is

the maximum time allowed to complete yellow level?

• The tool provides indicator to measure output achievement but not the outcome (impact)

achieved by the conservation area.

In 2016, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) kicked off the Bangun

Indonesia Untuk Jaga Alam demi keberlanjutan (USAID-BIJAK), a project that supports the

Government of Indonesia in improving the management of conservation areas and species

protection.

OBJECTIVES

The review of E-KKP3K aimed to identify and analyse “unclear” indicator(s) that were likely

to confuse the user(s), analyse indicator(s), and provide recommendations to improve E-

KKP3K. The review was carried out by posing questions such as what are the causes of

slow progress in the improvement of MPA management performance and have the

USAID.GOV REVIEW: TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF AQUATIC COASTAL AND SMALL ISLAND CONSERVATION AREAS | 2

assessments resulting from the use of E-KKP3K Technical Guidelines reflected the real

condition in the field?

METHODS

The E-KKP3K review was conducted through the following activities:

a) Preliminary discussion with Directorate of Marine Conservation and Biodiversity

b) Development of protocol to review E-KKP3K

c) Identification of likely “unclear” indicator(s)

d) Analysis on the identified indicator(s)

e) Workshop to review E-KKP3K

f) Development of recommendations

The review of was conducted between March – September 2017 with the following

timeline:

Activity Time Frame

MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

Preliminary discussion with MMAF

Development and agreement of protocol

Identification of likely unclear indicator(s)

Analysis on the indicator(s)

Development of recommendations

Key stakeholders involed in the review process included:

• Directorate of Marine Conservation and Biodiversity

• Directorate General of Marine Spatial Planning

• Technical units under Directorate General of Marine Spatial Planning

National Agency for Aquatic Conservation Areas – Kupang

National Office for Aquatic Conservation Areas - Pekanbaru

• Conservation area specialists :

Handoko Adi Susanto

Anton Wijonarno

M Khazali



Sutraman

Sudarsono

Glaudy Perdanahardja

RESULTS

BIJAK conducted a survey to identify the causes behind the slow progress of improving

management performance and effectiveness of MPAs. The survey involved 20 respondents

from relevant units in MMAF and district governments. The survey concluded that: (i) the

Technical Guidelines and the software are not difficult to use; (ii) the Technical Guidelines

should be kept as is or only slightly modified, though inputs suggested that the system

should use open source software (instead of current MS-Access platform); and (iii) the

Technical Guidelines should address the latest governance and government issues associated

with the enactment of Law 23/2014. The detail of the results can be seen in the attached

files (Hasil Survei Penggunaan Pedoman Teknis E-KKP3K, and Presentasi_Hasil Survei

Penggunaan E-KKP3K).

These results prompted the review team to return to the question of why the progress of

improving MPA management performance remains slow. Further analysis revealed that one major challenge of MPA management in Indonesia is that managers often do not know how

to achieve the vision statement in the Management & Zoning Plan (RPZ) document. Even if

the monitoring system does exist (as is the case in some MPAs), it did not provide guidance

on how to act upon monitoring results. This may be the result of lack of a decision-making

mechanism, as MPAs have limited authority to follow up the E-KKP3K assessment results.

Another challenge likely contributing to this is a lengthy funding-request process that can

take up to two years before recommended activies to improve management performance

and effectiveness can be implemented. Also, it is unclear what should be done by MPA

management units to achieve their objectives in marine tourism, captured fisheries,

sustainable aquaculture and maritime culture, and traditional management as elements of

achieving a MPA vision or goals.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on these results, this study recommends that E-KKP3K Technical Guidelines should be

revised by changing the structure, list of questions, and indicators to make them more

accurate and easily linked to the RPZ document. New sections that the study recommends

be included in the revised Technical Guidelines include: (i) specific conservation targets for

management effectiveness references; (ii) specific targets and conservation, socio-economic

and governance objectives for effectivenemanagement; and (iii) logical model to identify

conservation outcomes/effects and socio-economic and governance impacts of effective management of MPAs. In addition, the study recommends changing the management level

scores. We recommend moving from five levels to three. Under this, the reservation of an

MPA is not major part of management effectiveness anymore but instead a major prerequisite.

Furthermore, we recommend that the assessment of management effectiveness should only

be done when MPA management unit is ready with necessary human resources, technical



capacities and funding. Lastly, the system should not to use color system which can be

misleading.

The E-KKP3K Technical Guidelines was based on, among other documents, the World Bank

Score Card for MPAs (Staub & Hatzeolos, 2004) which was derived from the Management

Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), developed by WWF and the World Bank. To make the

assessment results of E-KKP3K more “visually compatible” with METT, it we recommend that

the E-KKP3K Technical Guidelines include a section that presents E-KKP3K assessment

results in the form of METT.



ANNEX1: QUESTIONAIRE FORM DISTRIBUTED TO A NUMBER

OF STAKEHOLDERS



ANNEX II: ACTIVITY DOCUMENTATION

ANNEX III: PROPOSED NEW SCORECARD

Level Term Criteria

1 Conservation Area Is Established.

Objective:

The P3K conservation areas are equipped with

adequate human resources, facilities and funding,

as well as the policy tools required to carry out

management action.

1.1 Human Resources management

1.2 Area management tools

1.3 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for office administration

1.4 Funding for area management

1.5 Management and zoning plans

1.6 Identification of P3K conservation areas

2 Minimally-managed Conservation Area.

Objective:

The status of P3K conservation areas are

strengthened through socialization, support and

regional suitability.

2.1 Border area arrangement

2.2 Technical security measures and area utilization

2.3 Conservation area socialization

2.4 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP of managing measures

2.5 Partnerships with stakeholders

2.6 Compliance with other related policies

2.7 Implementation of area supervision

2.8 Implementation of area utilization management

3 Optimally-managed Conservation Area.

Objective:

The P3K conservation areas achieve

planned/desired results and impacts that are

apparent to to the public.

3.1 The result of the implementation of the area utilization management

based on the condition of the habitat within the area

3.2 The results of management action to utilize resource areas

3.3 The impact of utilization management actions based on condition of

socio-economic-culture of the community, partners and other

stakeholders

3.4 Feedback for management

USAID.GOV REVIEW: TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF

AQUATIC COASTAL AND SMALL ISLAND CONSERVATION AREAS | 8

Level

1: Conservation Area Is

Established

Objective: The P3K conservation areas are equipped with adequate human resources, facilities and funding, as well as the policy

tools required to carry out management action.

Adm: Administrative indicators; Opr: operational indicators (existence in the field)

CRITERIA No. QUESTION ANSWER

VERIFICATION

TOOLS EXPLANATION

Yes No Adm Opr

1.1: Human

Resources

management

1.1.1 Does the reserved areas have the

management organizational unit?

Decision of Regional

Head / Minister /

Head of

Organization Unit;

Organizational

Structure Document

and / or Duties &

Functional

Descriptions.

There are persons /

individuals or

organizations

designated and

established through a

written decision.

1.1.2 Does the organizational unit have HR

division to implement the activities?

Decision Letter (SK)

.

At least 1 (one) type

of basic training

according to Duties &

Functions is

implemented, for

example: MPA 101,

Head of Unit

Head of Management Division

Head of Program Division Training of Fish

Resource

Conservation,

Training of diving and

monitoring, etc .

Administrative staff

Functional personnel

Number of HR (staff) according to plan

(what percentage?)

1.2: Area

management

tools

1.2.1 Does the management unit have a

complete office along with the facilities

Physical reports and

checks.

Self explanatory.

1.2.2 Do the management units have

information centers (eg, tourism / visitor

center)?at the region or filed level?

utilization

Physical reports and

checks.

Self explanatory. If

the information

center is located in

the same building as

the office, then it

should be mentioned

separately

1.2.3 Do the management units have the

supporting tools to carry out their

duties ?

Reports (on

monitoring facilities,

resource monitoring

tools,

communication tools

/ socialization and

other means, means

of boundary

markers), and

physical checks.

Self explanatory.




VERIFICATION

TOOLS EXPLANATION

Yes No Adm Opr

1.3: Standard

Operating

Procedures

(SOP) for office

administration

1.3.1 Have the SOP for office administration

been created?

SOP Documents.

Mention.

Self

explanatory.Referrung

to or adapting SOP

made by Central /

Regional

Government.

1.3.2 Have the SOP for financial management

been created ?

SOP Documents.

Mention.

Self explanatory.

1.3.3 Are there any SOP office management

available?

SOP Documents on

Management tools.

Self explanatory.

1.3.4 Are there any area monitoring plan

documents, including relevant SOP?

(by the regional management unit in

cooperation or coordination with the

national / regional PSDKP Directorate)?

Ratification of

Document and

Decision.

Self explanatory.


VERIFICATION

TOOLS EXPLANATION

Yes No Adm Opr

1.4: Funding for

area management

1.4.1 Is the Funding Planning, including the

identification of limited financing

capabilities and disparities, for the area

management available?

Strategy document

and area funding plan.

Self explanatory.

1.4.2 Is the area management budget in

accordance with the plan?

Report of the activity

implementation and

funding sources.

The answer refers

to the fulfillment of

the budget needs in

question 1.4.1.

1.4.3 Does the management unit obtain

management financing support from the

Regional Government Budget (APBD)

and / or the State Budget (APBN)?

The financial

statements of the

management

organizational unit are

in accordance with

the provisions &

annual work plan

prevailing in

Indonesia.

Self explanatory.

1.4.4

Is the sustainable funding to support the

fulfillment of the need of area

management budget already available

and implemented smoothly?

Activity and financial

reports.

Self explanatory.


VERIFICATION

TOOLS EXPLANATION

Yes No Adm Opr



1.5: Management

and zoning plans

1.5.1 Does the area already have the

Management and Zoning Plans (RPZ)?

Self explanatory.

1.5.2 Does the RPZ document include the

following Objectives?

Final Document of

Management Plan.

Self explanatory.

Area management

Area resources

Area Socio-economic-culture

1.5.3 Does the RPZ document include the

following conservation targets? More

than one options can be selected.

Final Document of

Management Plan.

Self explanatory.

Plus SDK as the

conservation target

(artifacts, shipwreck,

BMKT) Coral reefs •

Mangrove •

Seagrass beds •

Species (mention): •



Other Species? Mention! •

1.5.4 Does the management plan document

include information that can be used as

the baseline data (t0) of the resources?

• Document

Management Plan:

Matrix / Summary

of Management plan

containing the

information on

Resource & Society-

economic-culture

Self explanatory.

The information on

Resource condition

in each conservation

area, such as

percentage of coral

cover, abundance of

targeted fish, etc.



(sosekbud) –

baseline; a

permanent

monitoring site

according to GPS

points.

• Other Supporting

Documents.

1.5.5 Does the management plan document

include information that can be used as

the baseline data (t0) of social-economic-

culture (sosekbud)?

Self explanatory.

The information on

socio-economic-

cultural conditions

in each conservation

area, such as

community

perceptions,

fishermen's income,

etc.

1.5.6 Is the management plan document

supplemented by approved zoning limit

arrangement?

Decision on the

approval of

management plan, and

Minutes of zoning

boundaries

arrangement.

Self explanatory.

1.6: Identification

of KKP3K

1.6.1 Is the proposal submitted to the

Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries?

Proposal Documents

& receipt of document

submission.

Self explanatory.

1.6.2 Is the conservation area established by

the Minister of Marine Affairs and

Fisheries?

Ministerial Decision. Self explanatory.



Level

2: Minimally-managed Conservation

Area

Objective: P3K conservation areas are strengthened through socialization, raising support and regional suitability.


VERIFICATION

TOOLS EXPLANATION

Yes No Adm Opr

2.1: Establishment

of area border

marks and

registration of

the Nautical Map

Is the boundary marks established? The activity reports

(measurement,

mapping and

socialization).

Self explanatory.

Is the areas already covered in the

Nautical Map?

Nautical Map &

Notices to Mariners

(BPI); terrestrial maps

registered in the Land

Registry Agency /

Office of the west

part of the coastal

areas.

Self explanatory.

2.2: Preparation

of supervision

2.1.1 Is the document on the area supervision

plan in cooperation with the local

Ratified documents

and decision.

Self explanatory.

technical plans

and area

utilization

community through Pokmaswas already

prepared?

2.1.2 Is the document of Technical Plan on

Natural Tourism, or other similar study,

to manage tourism activity and visitors

within the area already prepared?

Ratified documents

and decision.

Self explanatory.

2.1.3 Is the Document of Technical Plan of

Caught Fish, or any other similar study,

to manage the caught fish activities


Ratified documents

and decision.

Self explanatory.

2.1.4 Is the document of Technical Plan of

Sustainable Aquaculture, or other similar

study, to manage aquaculture activities


Ratified documents

and decision.

Self explanatory.


Education and Research in the already

prepared?

Ratified documents

and decision.

Self explanatory.


Maritime Customs & Cultural

Protection, or other similar study, to

protect maritime custom and culture


Ratified documents

and decision.

Self explanatory.

2.1.7 Is the document of communication

strategy, including the method to

demonstrate the ecological and socio-

Ratified documents

and decision.

Self explanatory.



economic benefits of the area for

stakeholders, already prepared?

2.3:

Dissemination of

information on

conservation

areas

2.3.1 Is conservation area determination

already socialized to all community

elements on a regular basis?

Reporting documents

with a list of those

attending the

socialization and

photograph of the

activities

Self explanatory.


VERIFICATION

TOOLS EXPLANATION

Yes No Adm Opr

2.4 Standard

Operating

Procedures

(SOP) of

managing

measures

2.3.1 Is the SOP of requirement review of

management activity already prepared?

SOP document of

activity requirement

review.

Self explanatory.

2.3.2 Are the following management SOP

already available according to minimum

requirements?

SOP documents.

Mention.

Self explanatory.

Institutional strengthening

Utilization control (not applicable to

KKPN)

Area resource management

Socio-economic-cultural Strengthening

2.3.3 Is the SOP of research and educational

already prepared?

SOP Documents of

natural tourism.

Self explanatory.

2.3.4 Is the SOP of waters natural tourism

activity implementation already

prepared?

SOP Documents of

Sustainable

Aquaculture.

Self explanatory.

2.3.5 Is the SOP of the sustainable

aquaculture activity implementation

already prepared?

SOP Documents of

Caught Fisheries.

Self explanatory.

2.3.6 Is the SOP of caught fisheries activities

already prepared?

SOP Documents of

maritime resource or

culture.

Self explanatory.

2.3.7 Is the SOP of data resource and marine

culture already prepared?

SOP Documents of

communication and

outreach (IEK).

Self explanatory.

2.3.8 Is the SOP of communication and

outreach (IEK) already prepared?

Activity report on

communication

between stakeholders.

Self explanatory.

2.5: Partnerships

with stakeholders

2.4.1 Is the management of organizational unit

already initiated partnerships with

stakeholders, including with indigenous

peoples to accommodate local cultures

and / or wisdom, if any?

Letter of cooperation

/ partnership.

Self explanatory.

2.4.2 Is the partnership with the stakeholders

already implemented?

Report on activities of

management unit with

partner.

Self explanatory.




VERIFICATION

TOOLS EXPLANATION

Yes No Adm Opr

2.6: Compliance

with other

related policies

2.6.1 Are the conservation areas listed in the

Regional Medium Term Development

Plan (RPJMD) / Regional Government

strategic plan?

RPJMD / Regional

Government Renstra

(Strategic Plan).

Self explanatory.

2.6.2 Are conservation areas listed in the

National Medium Term Development

Plan (RPJMN) / Government strategic

plan and Regional Medium Term

Development Plan (RPJMD) / Regional

Government strategic plan?

Documents of

Government RPJMN /

Renstra; and RPJMD /

Regional Government

Renstra

Self explanatory.

2.6.3 Are the conservation areas listed in the

document of Zoning Plan for Coastal

Areas and Small Islands (RZWP3K)?

Document of

RZWP3K.

Self explanatory.

2.6.4 Does the conservation area include the

ecosystems – habitat supporting

economical valued fish populations that

are linked each other to similar Fisheries

Management Areas (WPP)?

Documents of

scientific study on

ecosystem – habitat

network supporting

fish population

spatially (and

temporally).

Self explanatory.


VERIFICATION

TOOLS EXPLANATION

Yes No Adm Opr

2.7:

Implementation

of area

supervision

2.7.1 Is the supervisory activity carried out

independently by supervisory

organizational unit on a regular basis?

Activity reports

(supervision &

socialization of the

rules), information

board.

Self explanatory.



2.7.2 Is the supervisory activity carried out

independently by supervisory

organizational unit, but not on a regular

basis (incidentally)?

Activity Report. Self explanatory.

2.7.3 Is an integrated supervisory activities of

the area (with the management

organizational unit or with other parties

such as AL/Navy, water police unit)

carried out on a regular basis?


2.7.4 Is an integrated area supervision (with

the management organizational unit or

with others such as AL, water police

unit) already carried out on a regular

basis (incidental)?


2.7.5 Is POKMASWAS already established

(and has the organization & mechanisms

required for its activities)?

Document (activity

report and

establishment of

POKMASWAS).

Self explanatory.

2.7.6 Is the supervision by POKMASWAS

already carried out regularly?


2.7.7 is the supervision by POKMASWAS

already carried out, but not on a regular

basis (incidentally)?


2.7.8 Does the supervisory organizational

unit already have regional supervision

guidelines?

Technical Guidelines

of area supervision.

Self explanatory.

2.7.9 Does the supervisory organization unit

have the area supervision action plan?

National Action Plan

(RAN) of Area

Supervision.

Self explanatory.


already have supervisory post within the

area?

Physical Check. Self explanatory.




already have supervisory means?

Physical Check. Means of

supervision in the

form of surveillance

ship / speed boat,

beach radar, etc.

2.7.12 Does the human resources (HR)

supervision have participated the area

supervision training?

Training certificate. Self explanatory.

2.7.13 Is the supervisory organizational unit

supported by a supervisory budget?

Financial statements. Self explanatory.

2.7.14 Does the area utilization implementer

already comply with the prevailing

regulations?

Report of supervision

result.

Self explanatory.


VERIFICATION

TOOLS EXPLANATION

Yes No Adm Opr

2.8:

Implementation

of area utilization

management

2.8.1 Is the management action to utilize the

areas for activities related to Water

Nature tourism already carried out?

Monitoring &

evaluation (M & E)

reports: (a) habitat of

places & tourist

attractions; (b) tourist

visits; and (c) the

indicator to be the

reference.

Self explanatory.

Referring to related

Tehcnical Plan

2.8.2 Is the initial habitat measurements already

carried out?

The document of

related technical plan

and survey reports to

measure t0.

Self explanatory.

2.8.3 Is management action of the activities

related to the Waters Natural tourism

already involved local community or

partners already carried out?

Monitoring &

evaluation (M & E)

reports: (a) local

community

involvement; (b)

partner involvement;

and (c) the indicator

to be the reference.

Self explanatory.



2.8.4 Is the measurement of the initial socio-

economic-cultural conditions of the local

community and partners involved in the

PAP already carried out?

The document of



measure t0.

Self explanatory.


areas for the activities related to the

Caught Fisheries already carried out?

Monitoring &

evaluation (M & E)

reports: (a) fish stock;

(b) control and

restriction of caught

tool and boat/ship; (b)

fish product limitation

(c) the indicator to be

the reference.

Self explanatory.

2.8.6 Is the measurements of the initial condition

of fish resources (fish stock) already carried

out?

The document of



measure t0.

Self explanatory.

2.8.7 Is the management action to the utilize

the area for activities related to

Sustainable Aquaculture already carried

out?

Monitoring &

evaluation (M & E)

reports: (a) water

quality and aquatic

ecology; (b) product

limitation (c) the

indicator to be the

reference.

Self explanatory.

2.8.8 Is the measurement of the initial condition

of the habitat and the aquatic environment

already carried out?

The document of



measure t0.

Self explanatory.


area for education and training activities


Monitoring &

evaluation (M & E)

report of

implementation of

education and

research activities

supplemented

indicator to be the

reference

Self explanatory.

2.8.10 Is the protection measures on the

custom resource and maritime culture


2.8.11 Is the communication strategies to

demonstrate the ecological and socio-

economic benefits of the area already

carried out?

Report of

communication

strategy

implementation.

Self explanatory.

Level

3: Optimum Managed Conservation

Area

Objective: The P3K conservation areas give planned/desired results and impacts and shown to the public.




VERIFICATION

TOOLS EXPLANATION

Yes No Adm Opr

3.1: The result of

the

implementation

of the area

utilization

management on

the condition and

quality of the

habitat within the

area

3.1.1 Does the habitat condition of Core

Zone improve as indicated by the

increase of cover or area of coral reef

and / or seagrass beds and / or

mangrove forest ecosystem?

The condition of t0

(baseline) in each

zone is compared to

habitat monitoring

results in the zones

(shall indicate time

series data).

Self explanatory.

3.1.2 Does the habitat condition of

Sustainable Fishery Zone improve as

indicated by the increase of cover or

area of coral reef and / or seagrass beds

and / or mangrove forest ecosystem?

Self explanatory.

3.1.3 Does the habitat condition of Utilization

Zone improve as indicated by the




Self explanatory.

3.1.4 Does the habitat condition of Limited

Utilization Zone improve as indicated by

the increase of cover or area of coral

reef and / or seagrass beds and / or


Self explanatory.

3.1.5 Does the habitat condition of Other

Zones improve as indicated by the

Self explanatory.



3.1.6 Is the physical-chemical-geological

quality of the waters in the Core Zone

maintained / preserved?

The condition of t0

(baseline) in each

zone is compared to

the monitoring result

of the physics-

chemical-geological

quality of the waters

in the zones (shall

indicate time series

data).

Self explanatory.


quality of waters in the Sustainable

Fisheries Zone maintained / preserved?

Self explanatory.


quality of waters in the Utilization Zone

maintained / maintained?

Self explanatory.


quality of waters in the Limited

Utilization Zone maintained /

preserved?

Self explanatory.


quality of the waters of Other Zones

maintained / preserved?

Self explanatory.


VERIFICATION

TOOLS EXPLANATION

Yes No Adm Opr

3.2: The results

of management

action to utilize

resource areas

(species or

3.2.1 Does the supervision and security

activities improve the user compliance

with rules and area zoning?

The patrol report

contains data on

illegal and not

environmentally

friendly activities as

Self explanatory.

groups of

conserved target

species = fish of

economic value

and important to

ecological

functions)

well as the number of

damaged habitats in

the conservation area

(time series report),

pokmaswas report.

3.2.2 Does the community support and their

active participation to conserve area

management increase?

The report of

community

perception

monitoring results

(indicating the

increase of

community awareness

level as well as actions

supporting

conservation area

management).

Self explanatory.



3.2.3 Is the community involved in the

processes of planning, implementing and

evaluating the activities?

Report on

conservation area

management activities

(indicating community

representation and

involvement in every

management process,

or community

involvement in

community-related

program

implementation).

Self explanatory.

3.2.4 Does supervision and security activities

contribute to maintain or improve

conservation targets related to natural

tourism?

Monitoring report of

conservation target.

Self explanatory.



conservation targets related to caught

fisheries?



Self explanatory.



conservation targets related to

aquaculture?



Self explanatory.

3.2.7 Resources status and condition

(conservation targets) in core zones, Self explanatory.

sustainable fisheries zones and

utilization zones.

3.2.7.1 Does the quality condition (size / length

/ weight) of dominant fish in the core

zone, sustainable fishery zone,

utilization zone and / or limited

utilization zone, maintain or increase?

Quality monitoring

report (length /

weight) of fish in the

zones concerned.

Self explanatory.

3.2.7.2 Does the number and diversity of non-

fish target species / types in the core

zone, sustainable fisheries zone,

utilization zones and / or limited

utilization zones, maintain or increase?

Quantity monitoring

and variety of species

/ species of non-fish

targets reports.

Self explanatory.

3.2.7.3 Does the population of endemic species

in the area stay or increase?

Monitoring reports of

endemic species

populations.

Self explanatory.

3.2.8 Is the conservation area used as a

research and education sites by

stakeholders?

Report on research

and education

activities in

conservation areas.

Self explanatory.


VERIFICATION

TOOLS EXPLANATION

Yes No Adm Opr



3.3: The impact

of utilization

management

actions on

condition of

socio-economic-

culture of the

community,

partners and

other

stakeholders

3.3.1 Do the tourism activities within a

conservation area provide socio-

economic benefits to the stakeholders,

especially local community?

Review report on the

impact of tourism

activities within the

conservation area.

Self explanatory.

3.3.2 Do caught fishing activities in

conservation areas provide socio-

economic benefits to stakeholders,

especially local community?

Review report on the

impact of caught

fishing activities within

conservation areas.

Self explanatory.

3.3.3 Do aquaculture activities in conservation

areas provide socio-economic benefits

to stakeholders, especially local

community?

Review Report on the

impact of aquaculture

activities in

conservation areas.

Self explanatory.

3.3.4 Are the catches of fishermen in

sustainable fisheries zones / limited

utilization zones (caught fisheries) in

accordance with JTB / MSY / CPUE

specified by the managing unit?

Monitoring report on

the number of caught

fish by fishermen

(total biomass per

number of fishermen

per unit / certain time

period)

Self explanatory.

3.3.5 Does the total production of

aquaculture farmer in a sustainable

fishery zone / limited utilization zone

(aquaculture) stay or increase?

Monitoring report

aquaculture result

production (total

biomass per number

of fishermen per unit /

certain time period).

Self explanatory.


VERIFICATION

TOOLS EXPLANATION

Yes No Adm Opr

3.4: Feedback to

improve

management

performance

3.4.1 Does the partnership with stakeholders

work well and have positive impact to

area management?

Activity and

monitoring reports,

and the review result

of independent team

that indicates the

positive impact of the

partnership.

Self explanatory.

3.4.2 Are the result of monitoring,

supervision, research and outreach /

awareness used as the annual planning

reference for next activities?

Review result of

independent team

indicating the positive

impact of

management on the

area resources and

socio-economic

conditions of the

Self explanatory.

3.4.3 Does management have positive

impacts on the management

performance of waters natural tourism?

Self explanatory.





performance of caught fisheries?

community, and

feedback to the

organizational unit of

the area management

agency. Using

mutually agreed proxy

indicators.

Self explanatory.


impacts on the performance of

sustainable aquaculture management?

Self explanatory.



performance of education and research

activities?

Self explanatory.


impacts on the performance of

customary resource protection and

maritime culture?

3.4.8 Is the area research and development

already carried to support management

activities?

Published research &

development report.

Self explanatory.

3.4.9 Does the communications strategy

implemented promote positive

perceptions and support for the area?

The report of survey /

assessment from the

management team

and / or independent

team.

Self explanatory.

3.4.10 Does the community income increase

related to tourism have impacts on


assessment from the

management team

Self explanatory.

public awareness to support the area

resource conservation?


team.

3.4.11 Does the community income increase

related to fisheries have impacts on

public awareness to support the area

resource conservation?


assessment from the

management team


team

Self explanatory.

REVIEW : TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE … · 2019. 12. 23. · 1 | REVIEW: TECHNICAL...

Documents

Transcript of REVIEW : TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE … · 2019. 12. 23. · 1 | REVIEW: TECHNICAL...