1 / 20

Tracking Management Effectiveness in Multiple Sites - Sue Stolton, Equilibrium, UK

This presentation introduces the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool, a methodology developed to track portfolios of sites. It provides a brief description of the tool, how it has been used, and a comparison with the Periodic Reporting Section II. It also discusses its potential adaptation for World Heritage use.

melodyr
Download Presentation

Tracking Management Effectiveness in Multiple Sites - Sue Stolton, Equilibrium, UK

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. Tracking Management Effectiveness in Multiple Sites Sue Stolton, Equilibrium, UK

  2. This presentation is about a simple methodology – known as the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool - that has been developed to track portfolios of sites • In 15 minutes it has to be a simple presentation • But creating simple things can be complex • I won’t be telling you about the years it took to develop, test, review and revise • Or give substantive detail of the results of analysis using the tool

  3. I will be giving a brief description of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool • Say a little about how it has been used • Give a short analysis comparing the Tracking Tool with the Periodic Reporting Section II • Some suggestion about how it could be adapted for WH use

  4. The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool is ‘fit for purpose’ • Developed to assess agreed and clearly articulated objectives

  5. 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

  6. Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool Objectives • Tracking improvements in management to achieve conservation and development outcomes • Harmonised reporting for multiple sites • Relatively quick and easy to complete • Based on expert knowledge available at site • Easily understood by non-specialists • Consistent with existing reporting systems • Provides useful information for site managers

  7. How has it been used? • WWF’s portfolio of 200 forest protected areas • World Bank’s portfolio of protected areas • All Global Environment Facility protected areas projects • Adapted for marine and freshwater biomes • Adapted for use in all protected areas in China • Used in all Indian Tiger Reserves • Used to improve management in private reserves in South Africa and Namibia

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

  9. Based on the management cycle of a site • WCPA Framework for assessing management effectiveness

  10. Two Tools: Shared Needs

  11. Similarities • WH: assess conservation status; focus on future activities; strengthen co-operation • TT: track/monitor progress of conservation targets; plan portfolio interventions • WH/TT: Overlap of questionnaire topics

  12. Differences • TT: based on internationally recognised structure for reporting protected area management effectiveness (WCPA Framework) • TT: 30 questions plus data sheet • WH: Natural and cultural site • WH: 140 questions (nearly 500 over all regions)

  13. Tracking Tool: 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 • Short and relatively quick to complete • Standardised language thus easy to translate

  14. Tracking Tool: Limitations • Not an independent assessment • Questions are not weighted • Limited evaluation of outputs and outcomes However good management is, if values continue to decline, the objectives are not being met. Therefore the question on condition assessment has disproportionate importance.

  15. Tracking Tool: Achievements • Has grown from measuring one project’s targets to many adaptations and global uptake • Largest global data set of protected area effectiveness information using one system • Improving effectiveness from site to global level

  16. Can the Tracking Tool be adapted to fit the needs of WH reporting? • Step 1: Clear objectives about what Periodic Reporting can and cannot achieve • Step 2: Adapt Tracking Tool to reflect WH requirements and in particular cultural sites • Step 3: Test revised Tracking Tool in key cultural, natural and mixed sites

  17. Cultural Challenges • Challenge 1: sites are not managed by one single management unit • Challenge 2: sites fragmented sometimes over large areas

  18. The Tracking Tool is available in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Russian, Bahasa Indonesia, Lao, Khmer, Vietnamese and Mongolian Download several language version from: http://www.panda.org

More Related