Linking management effectiveness evaluation and periodic reporting: Possibilities and Challenges

1. Linking management effectiveness evaluation and periodic reporting:Possibilities and Challenges Sue Stolton, Equilibrium Consultants

2. 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?

3. 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

4. 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

5. A Challenge Shared Reporting on conservation objectives • Institutions: The World Bank • Funding agencies: GEF • NGOs: WWF • Countries: Finland • States: New South Wales, Australia

6. 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

7. The WCPA Framework is based on the idea that management follows a process

8. 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

9. Original incentive for developing the Tracking ToolWorld Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable UseTarget: 75 million hectares of existing forest protected areas under improved management to achieve conservation and development outcomes by 2010

10. 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

11. What is the Tracking Tool? • Datasheet: contextual information • Questionnaire: 4 alternative text answers to 30 question and an associated score to summarise progress • Text fields: recording justification for assessment, sources used and steps to be taken to improve the management issue

12. Sample Question

13. 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

14. 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

15. 37 countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America

16. 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

17. 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

18. Minimum Requirements for Effective ManagementWWF proposals drawing on TT results • Legal designation • Demarcation of protected area boundaries • Clear management objectives • Operational plan • Operational budget • Monitoring plan

19. 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?

21. Two Tools: Shared Needs

23. 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

24. Similarities andDifferences • TT based on internationally recognised structure for reporting management effectiveness (WCPA framework) • WH: 140 questions • TT: 30 questions plus data sheet

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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

29. The Information Iceberg/Ideal Public Environment Assessment Report Scientific Environment Monitoring Report Tanzania Carnivore Centre SENAPA Ecological Monitoring Serengeti Biodiversity Project Rhino Project

30. What if? The lessons learned from developing and applying the TT were incorporated into the WH period reporting process

31. 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

32. 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/about_wwf/what_we_do/forests/our_solutions/protection/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=20774