Linking management effectiveness evaluation and periodic reporting Possibilities

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 ü Relative success: issues relating to legal establishment, biodiversity condition assessment, boundary demarcation, design and objective setting û 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: So. C 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) 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) 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 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. 11. 04 Are these facilities adequate? 11. 05 If no, what facilities is the site in need of? Yes 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 Eo. H 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? u. Ne ws. ID=20774 Second Meeting of the Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting: 2 -3 March 2006