ESI Indicators overview of considerations within and beyond

ESI Indicators: overview of considerations within and beyond boundaries Ian Dutton idutton@tnc. org

Presentation Sequence u u Reasons why ESI measures not as common Review of purposes of measuring effectiveness – Feedback vs feedout u Use of ESI Measures in PA Management – Indicator selection u Use of ESI indicators Beyond the Boundaries – Case studies – water yield and fisheries u u Some Unresolved Challenges Promoting integration of ESI measures

Why are ESI measures less used? u u u Bias of PA management towards biological and physical values General lack of attention to management effectiveness (M E) Lack of integration between monitoring inside and outside PAs

Feedback and Feedout Functions of PA Monitoring

Continuum of M E Monitoring

ESI Indicators u u u Add often missing/persuasive “Human Dimension” to ME evaluation Necessarily simplify complexity of systems they purport to describe Comprise both established indicators and experimental techniques Are a norm in development sectors (e. g. CPUE) and create a framework for comparison inside and outside Pas when comparison possible Increasing focus for BIG PICTURE assessment of human wellbeing (e. g. Nat Economic + Social Accounting) and progress

Increasing Sophistication Then u u (if asked!) Total cost per park Management plan written u Number of visitors u Number of Staff Now Cost per unit effort/ cost effectiveness u Management plan working + if not, why? u Quality of visitor experience u u Staff competencies

Key Principles for ESI Indicator Selection Changes can be benchmarked or related to broader trends u Solid theoretical framework – e. g. what level of change is significant? u Well understood meaning – enables consistency of measurement/ interpretation u Facilitate communication about status and trends – even when things are not going in “right direction” u

The cost(s) of not looking beyond boundaries Lack of integration across boundary leads to: u u u Inefficient data collection/duplication Loss of learning Loss of opportunity to build constituency/promote benefits “Blindness” + Institutional isolation Lack of institutional willingness to work at scales commensurate with threats etc.

Case 1: Lore Lindu NP Sulawesi

Measuring Benefits Across Boundaries @ 2 scales u Buffer Zone - village agreements (self monitored) promote improved village governance, stakeholder support and improved livelihoods u Downstream Cities water valuation – ($9 million/year) built new constituency in local govt. and rural sectors

Case 2: Spillover Effects from Marine Protected Areas u u u Community marine sanctuary model imported to Blongko (N. Sulawesi) from Apo Island Fish abundance increased 3 x in first 2 years with resultant increase in catches beyond boundaries 20 sanctuaries now established in province and more on way!

Some Unresolved/Irresolvable Challenges Scale u Cultural differences u Precision vs cost u Concordance u

Recommendations u Employ ESI measures more effectively within PA management u Link ESI measures with broader State of Environment efforts to inform global efforts such as Millennium Goals CHALLENGE Involve social science more directly in performance management…