1 / 20

Results of 22-23 January 2007 Meeting of Working Group on the Questionnaire and Indicators

Results of 22-23 January 2007 Meeting of Working Group on the Questionnaire and Indicators. 24 January 2007. Background. 30 COM 11.G created small working group to discuss questionnaire and indicators

armando-wagner
Download Presentation

Results of 22-23 January 2007 Meeting of Working Group on the Questionnaire and Indicators

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Results of 22-23 January 2007 Meeting of Working Group on the Questionnaire and Indicators 24 January 2007

  2. Background • 30 COM 11.G created small working group to discuss questionnaire and indicators • results of 1st meeting (6-7 Nov 06) reported to previous meeting on Reflection Year on Periodic Reporting (9-10 Nov 06) • since Nov, sub-groups worked to elaborate elements of proposed approach • 22-23 Jan meeting refined work of sub-groups

  3. Committee Direction on Periodic Reporting • Operational Guidelines 199-210 describe objectives, procedures and general format • Operational Guidelines Annex 7 describes detailed format and contents of reports • State Party driven exercise working group proposals respect this direction and make process easier for States Parties

  4. Periodic Report – Section II • Addresses two main purposes of periodic reporting • para 201 b) provide assessment of whether OUV of the property is being maintained over time • para 201 c) provide up-dated information about the property to record changing circumstances and state of conservation of the property

  5. Information Iceberg Periodic Reporting Monitoring and assessment (Reactive monitoring; national monitoring etc) Site Monitoring Site Monitoring Site Monitoring Site Monitoring

  6. Proposed approach • electronic questionnaire, hosted on website, to achieve • information updates • partially pre-filled by WH Centre • verified by State Party • para 201c • assessment of state of OUV, state of conservation and current conditions • completed by State Party • para 201b and 201c • conclusions and future actions

  7. II. Statement of OUV Up-date Assessment

  8. II.4 Management Up-date Assessment

  9. II.5 FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY(based on IUCN Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP)

  10. II.5 FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY(based on IUCN Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) Second level factors Third level factors

  11. II.7 Summary of Conclusions and Recommended Actions

  12. European questionnaire 47% open text fields 0% pre-filled 36% yes/no Detail 166 questions 77 open text fields 59 yes/no 12 multiple choice 7 yes/no lists Proposed approach 4% open text fields 44% pre-filled 48% multiple choice or ranked Detail 124 questions 56 assessment questions 5 open fields (but not included comments) 5 yes/no 34 multiple choice 13 ranked lists 55 pre-filled data 13 headline factors affecting property assessment Comparison

  13. Benefits for WH Property Managers and States Parties • Quicker and easier to do • fewer questions • less text to compose • data pre-filled • Documents shared understanding of each WH property – facilitate all future discussions • Assessment questions encourage best practise in management • Illustrates utility of assessing management effectiveness regularly

  14. Benefits for WH Committee • Uniform approach and common terms for all regions • Enables data analysis for future uses eg training, global threat analyses • Strong information base for State of Conservation, Reactive Monitoring and other discussions

  15. Benefits for WH Centre • Data input electronically • no reprocessing required • storage • Facilitates information sharing with other Conventions

  16. Indicators • For WH properties, two major categories of indicators • conservation indicators (OUV, integrity, authenticity) • management effectiveness (protection and management) • Determining appropriate indicators requires an agreed statement of OUV • Indicators relevant to all processes (eg SoC, Danger Listing), not just Periodic Reporting • should be discussed at Benchmarks meeting

  17. Next steps • Revisions to and distribution of proposal to working group: 9 Feb • Informal field testing and final working group comments: 31 March • Final revisions to proposal: 20 April • Draft Committee decision prepared: 11 May

  18. Need to make the link about correlations here .. i.e. then ask if management is effective, are there plans/system in place, if they are effective, appropriate, adequately funded, participatory etc etc

More Related