methodology manual - parks dinarides · nature park), miljenko gašparac (risnjak national park),...

CONNECTING LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND PROTECTED AREAS

Community Involvement Assessment

Methodology Manual

Authors: Violeta Orlović Lovren, Wilf Fenten, Jana Kus Veenvliet, Richard Partington

June 2017, corr 11th July 2017

Contents

Foreword........................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Key concepts and principles .................................................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Local community and stakeholders ..................................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Involvement of local communities and communities of interest ......................................................................... 3

2.3 Human-rights based approach ............................................................................................................................. 3

2.4 Governance and management of protected areas ................................................................................................. 4

2.5 Principles of sustainable development ................................................................................................................. 5

3. Methodology Framework ...................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Research design ................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.1 Standardising methodology of monitoring ................................................................................................... 6

3.1.2 Selection of research methods ...................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.3 Research instruments .................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1.4 Preparation of the assessment ....................................................................................................................... 9

3.1.5 Assessment process .................................................................................................................................... 10

4. References ........................................................................................................................................................... 19

Annex A: Standard Ranking Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 20

Annex B: Questionnaire for protected area authorities ................................................................................................ 27

Annex C: Questionnaire for representatives of local communities ............................................................................. 40

Annex D: Reporting template for assessors ................................................................................................................. 52

Annex E: Scoring Instructions for assessors ................................................................................................................ 54

Annex F: Glossary ....................................................................................................................................................... 55

Annex G: Terms of Reference for assessors ................................................................................................................ 61

Acronyms DAP Park Dinarides Association

CBD PoWPA Convention on Biodiversity – Program of Work in Protected Areas

LC Local community IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature

PA4NP WWF's Project Protected Areas for Nature and People

PA Protected area

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organisation

WHO World Health Organisation

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

Foreword WWF is one of the world's leading non-governmental and non-profit organisations for nature

protection. WWF was established in 1961 and is represented in over 80 countries. WWF implements

various activities and projects with a goal of contributing significantly to the conservation of biodiversity.

WWF brings forth top world experience and expertise and applies them locally knowing well the local

circumstances and true needs of regions.

WWF Adria, established at the beginning of 2015, is present across the region, covering Albania, Bosnia

and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Croatia, Kosovo1, Macedonia, Slovenia and Serbia. In an operational

sense, WWF Adria is part of the WWF Mediterranean Programme, whose mission is conservation and

sustainable management of forests, marine and freshwater ecosystems, and protected areas in the

Mediterranean region.

Through the Protected Areas for Nature and People project (PA4NP) WWF Adria over a four-year

period, together with the Park Dinarides Association, worked to develop and strengthen the

relationships between protected areas and their local communities as well as the promotion of

sustainable development of the protected areas throughout the Dinaric Arc region.

The specific purpose of the Community Involvement Assessment was to further this aim. Once

developed and tested in one region, the Dinaric Arc region, this methodology can be applied in the

protected areas in other parts of the world. It enables community involvement assessment and, based

of its results, provides guidelines for improvements in the protected areas’ governance, management,

communication and interaction with local communities, thus helping to improve their economic

performance, local prosperity and quality of life.

By providing this manual, we hope we contribute to these processes, as well as to efforts of monitoring

and influencing national policies and an efficient, effective transposition of EU and other relevant

legislation in those the regions where it will be used.

1 Without prejudice to the position or status and in line with UNSCR 1244/99 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo

Declaration of Independence.

Acknowledgements The Community Involvement Assessment methodology has been developed by a team of four experts

drawn from different countries and with a wide range of practical and academic experience: Wilf

Fenten, an independent environmental advisor from the United Kingdom; Jana Kus Veenvliet, Institute

Symbiosis, Slovenia; Professor Violeta Orlović Lovren, University of Belgrade, Serbia; Richard Partington,

an independent advisor on national parks, cultural and protected landscapes from the United Kingdom.

Invaluable technical advice was received from Professor Goran Opačić, University of Belgrade, Serbia.

The work on the project, with its many discussions, reviewing of materials, scoping, developing of tools,

piloting and implementing of methodology, began in early 2016 and was completed in the summer of

2017.

During the entire process, the support of colleagues from WWF Adria and the Park Dinarides Association

was crucial for the success of the project. In particular, we should like to thank Marija Kukec, Leon Kebe

and Deni Porej from the WWF Adria and WWF Mediterranean Programme, as well as Lidija Brnović,

Zoran Mrdak and Ljubiša Pejović from the Park Dinarides Association.

The implementation of this methodology was a joint effort of this extended team and the team of

assessors, who contributed significantly to success of the process.

We should also like to thank the protected area managers of four pilot protected areas from Serbia,

Croatia and Slovenia: Slobodan Simić (Zasavica Special Nature Reserve), Igor Petrović (Stara Planina

Nature Park), Miljenko Gašparac (Risnjak National Park), Stojan Ščuka in Rosana Cerkvenik (Škocjan

Caves Park).

Our special gratitude goes to the assessors who, with great enthusiasm, carried out the assessment

workshops right across the Dinaric Arc Region. Our thanks also to all the participants of those workshops

in 66 protected areas, whose improved interactions in the future are our hope and the purpose of this

project.

The Authors, June 2017

1

1. Introduction This manual provides guidance for implementation of the Community Involvement Assessment methodology developed within the Protected Areas for Nature and People project. It was designed to fill an important gap for individual protected areas, agencies and conservation institutions by providing a methodology to collate and build information about the levels of involvement and interaction between protected areas and its key stakeholders, including local communities. The methodology comprises quantitative and qualitative methods and tools, to assess interactions from the perspective of protected area representatives and local communities, through a survey and the facilitated discussion of members of both groups. Using a participatory approach, it is meant to serve as a “roadmap” to assess, improve and maintain good community relationships.

The first part of the manual offers a review of the key concepts and principles of the approach. Focusing on community interaction and involvement as a core of good governance of protected areas, it relates to the most relevant policy goals and concepts. Furthermore, it provides a description of the methodological framework and research design, followed by detailed step-by-step guidance for assessors on how to implement this methodology. While the organisation and conducting the workshops can be performed by skilful and trained facilitators, any modifications of the methodology tools, the redefinition of indicators and the validation of results, require technical support, research and protected area governance expertise. This methodology can be used by agencies, organisations, associations and other parties interested in monitoring and improving of interactions of protected areas and local communities. Originally developed for the Dinarides region, where it will be applied for monitoring and improving of interactions between protected areas and communities in the future, it also can be used in other parts of the world. However, great care must be taken to look in particular at the range of partners, the legal background of countries, the different languages, cultures, customs and other aspects when using the questionnaires and the standard ranking criteria so that local context and qualities are fully taken into account.

2. Key concepts and principles

2.1 Local community and stakeholders

A local community is defined as a group of individuals and interested parties sharing a same territory.

Moreover, they are involved in different but related aspects of living together. Local community

members also share common interests and have “face-to-face encounters and/or different influences in

their daily life” (Feyerabend et al., 2004).

The local community is usually not a homogenous entity. People form communities around varied

common interests coming from different ethnic and other social groups. Culture, identity, spiritual

meaning, social wellbeing and heritage for future generations are among community values important

for protected area governance and management.

2

Taking a landscape approach One of the underlying principles of the 2000 European Landscape Convention (https://goo.gl/tjVShR) is that landscape is a cultural construct with the convention placing people at the centre of landscape planning. In taking a “landscape approach”- one based on supporting local communities in their stewardship of protected areas and the broader landscape/seascape - it recognises that: • the cultural and natural values of landscape are linked; • landscapes encompass tangible and intangible values, history and present-day uses and • local communities have long been at the heart of shaping these landscapes and are often their

present-day stewards (Brown et al., 2005).

Locality is a very important criterion in defining with whom to collaborate in local areas. However,

people who live outside the geographic boundaries of local area but have an interest in the resources (of

the protected area) or their protection can also be included.

Local community – as used in the context of this methodology approach – refers to inhabitants from the territory of protected area and its vicinity, as well as to stakeholders from the territory within or outside a protected area borders.

An analysis of interested parties with whom to collaborate is usually referred to as “stakeholder

analysis”. Stakeholders include all those who have influence on, or can be affected by, the governance

and management process (see the Glossary, Annex G).

The methodology developed for this project highlights two groups of stakeholders starting from the

sectors in society:

a) Non–public authority stakeholders

Communities located within and/or around the protected area

Community-based organisations (e.g. farmers‘ cooperatives)

Specific social groups within communities that tend to be marginalised in decision-making

processes (e.g. women, ethnic minorities)

NGOs and other special-interest groups (conservation organisations, hunting clubs, fishing clubs,

other organisations or “communities of interest”)

Private-sector organisation, for-profit and not-for-profit

b) Public authority stakeholders

Groups/organisations from the public sector (state agencies and expert institutions including

nature conservation institutes)

State research institutions

Education institutions on any level of education

Regional development agencies

Municipal administration or local councils

Outside agencies (e.g. NGO) delegated by public authority

https://goo.gl/tjVShR

3

Key stakeholders may include groups/individuals from all sectors with whom the protected area is likely

to work most often and may have developed relations.

2.2 Involvement of local communities and communities of interest

Community involvement refers to processes of active participation in planning, decision-making and

local development and respects variety of values, meets interests and needs of different groups from

local community and stakeholders.

Involvement (sometimes also referred to as participation or engagement) and collaboration are vital for

successful, adaptive protected area management and governance. Participation makes a basic principle

of protected area planning since it has been recognised that without participation by the beneficiaries of

the plan, implementation and outcomes will often fail (Worboys et al., 2015). It requires participatory

planning and considering of questions: engaging with whom, why, how and when?

Participation and equity in global policy documents The Aarhus Convention promotes the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (https://goo.gl/mvnHma)). The Convention on Biodiversity – Program of Work in Protected Areas (CBD – PoWPA) and in particular the Programme Element 2: Governance, Participation, Equity and Benefit Sharing (https://goo.gl/tKm3CA) and other relevant documents, strongly promote the concept of participatory planning and collaborative management of protected areas.

The Community Involvement Assessment recognises two general levels of participation: involvement and influence and within it, qualitatively different, five stages of engagement:

1) No involvement at all 2) Information-receiving 3) Information-sharing 4) Consultation 5) Influence on decisions through active participation.

The community involvement is context-specific and requires all actors to participate and influence

decisions on future local development. This belongs to the core competencies of protected area

managers requiring time, resources and skills. The Community Involvement Assessment creates a

baseline from which a set of proposals can be developed to promote and share good practice and

improve capacities of all for engagement.

2.3 Human-rights based approach

Human rights associated with environmental and developmental rights are known as a “third

generation” of rights, articulated in the 1970s in the Stockholm Declaration and in 1990s in the Earth

Summit in Rio declarations and following relevant documents (Worboys et al., 2015).

https://goo.gl/mvnHma

https://goo.gl/tKm3CA

4

Nowadays it is an approach promoted by many agencies and non-governmental organisations

worldwide to achieve a positive transformation of power relations among the various key stakeholders

and actors. Rights-based approaches aim at strengthening capacity and empowering individuals and

organisations to participate in decision-making. Rights are – or should be – always balanced by

responsibilities including a responsibility towards the rights of future generations and the rights of

nature.

The approach of the Community Involvement Assessment follows the principles defined in the WWF Conservation Strategy and the Position Paper (WWF Sweden, 2013):

• Fulfilling rights to information: A right to information is fundamental to the realisation of political, economic, social and cultural rights as well as environmental rights.

• Delivering on the rights to participation: In order to ensure participation in decision-making as a right, any participation has to be meaningful - going beyond passive engagement of stakeholders.

• Upholding rights to non-discrimination and equality: Non-discrimination and equality have been a core principle of the global discourse on human rights, recognising that all people regardless of gender, ethnicity and disability are entitled to the same consideration, participation and support.

Although these principles are an integral part of the entire assessment approach, one of the section of

the questionnaires is dedicated in particular to “Equal Rights and Opportunities” seeking to understand

protected areas policies towards these aspects, their implementation in practice, as well as the

collaboration of protected area authorities with organisations dealing with equity and human rights – as

perceived by both protected area and local community respondents.

2.4 Governance and management of protected areas

Governance is the concept comprising “interactions among structures, processes and traditions that

determine how power is exercised, how decisions are taken on issues of public concern and how citizens

or other stakeholders have their say” (Lockwood et al., 2006). It is about who is taking decisions, who

will manage it, who will participate in management planning, who will benefit and how it is organised

(Borrini – Feyerabend, Kothari, Oviedo, 2004).

Decision-making and power policies, rules, responsibilities and relationships determine how effective

(achievement of management objectives), equitable (fairly share of benefits and costs) and sustainable

(support of local community and broader society and harmonised development) protected areas are.

Protected areas show a diversity of governance. According to the key actors holding authority and responsibility for the main decisions affecting it there are four main governance types:

a) Governance by government (at various levels) b) Governance by various rights-holders and stakeholders together (shared governance) c) Governance by private individuals and organisations d) Governance by indigenous peoples and/or local communities (Lockwood et al., 2006).

5

Governance type and management category are among key characteristics of protected areas. While

governance addresses the “who” (makes decisions) and “how” (policies, processes, responsibilities),

management addresses “what” is to be done about protected area or specific situation.

Starting from the management objectives the IUCN recognises the following protected areas categories: Category I Strict protection – (I a) strict nature reserve, ( I b) wilderness area Category II Ecosystem conservation and protection (national park) Category III Conservation of natural features (natural monument) Category IV Conservation through active management (habitat/ species management area) Category V Landscape/seascape conservation and recreation (protected landscape/seascape) Category VI Sustainable use of natural resources (managed resource protected area) (Dudley, 2008).

While the management category and the type of management organisation are considered by this

methodology as important general characteristics, the focus is on interactions, relationships and

responsibilities – which are all closely related to the governance.

2.5 Principles of sustainable development

Principles of sustainable development are largely promoted today within the concepts of protected area

management. In particular, it is seen in paying high attention to the economic and social development

and benefits that protected area may have for local community, as well as to the mutual responsibility

for conservation and development.

The concept of ecosystem services provided by protected areas reflects one of such conceptual

influences of sustainable development on protected area management and governance approaches.

Some differentiate between three categories of these services:

provisioning services (ability of ecosystems to provide resources),

regulating services (ecosystems’ beneficial regulatory processes) and

cultural services (ecosystems’ non-material benefits) (Kettunen and ten Brink, in Worboys et al., 2015).

Local community engagement processes give protected areas the opportunities to share experiences in

sustainable practices with wider community, thus serving as a “role model” for sustainable

development.

The approach of this assessment incorporates the value of benefits around all three pillars of sustainability: • environmental (improving the quality of air, water, habitats of plants and animal species as well as

joy and li9ving standard for people), • economic (net income, revenue and business development for people and organisations), • social (widespread distribution throughout the [recipient] community of a range of benefits

including improving opportunities, income and services).

6

Following the focus of this methodology on governance issues, the Community Involvement Assessment

does not seek to address directly questions related to nature conservation and management, which is

no doubt one of the core functions of protected areas. It looks instead at the role of protected areas in

supporting socio-cultural and economic activities, rights and the quality of life of local people, for

example in relation to sustainable tourism and other fields, with particular attention given to its balance

with environmental quality and protection.

Respecting the rights and needs of local residents through sustainable tourism

This is an important principle and a key provision of the European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas (https://www.europarc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2010-European-Charter-for-Sustainable-Tourism-in-Protected-Areas.pdf). It means: involving local communities and stakeholders as much as possible in the planning of tourism in the

area; ensuring good communication and engagement between the protected area, local people,

businesses and visitors; identifying and seeking to reduce any conflicts that may arise; encouraging the employment of local people in work related to the protected area and tourism; monitoring protected area developments to reduce negative impacts to the local community and

stakeholders.

3. Methodology Framework Starting from the previously described key principles of the approach, the methodology of the assessment has been developed to meet the following project objective: Protected areas in Parks Dinarides Association have a standardised methodology and monitoring system for assessing the quality of interaction with local constituents.

3.1 Research design

3.1.1 Standardising methodology of monitoring

Defining standards, e.g. criteria of interaction between protected areas and local community. For

each of the selected fields of performance the team of experts formulated indicators. Different

numbers of indicators have been developed for different fields of performance, with decision-

making, communication and education/capacity development as fields of the highest priority within

this framework.

Assuring comparability of data – between and within protected areas.

Assuring the face validity – despite differences between protected areas the assessment is focusing

on community involvement, so that the content of the questionnaires and discussions have been

derived dominantly from aspects of protected area governance. The following seven fields of

performance were selected:

https://www.europarc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2010-European-Charter-for-Sustainable-Tourism-in-Protected-Areas.pdf

https://www.europarc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2010-European-Charter-for-Sustainable-Tourism-in-Protected-Areas.pdf

7

1. Decision-making and decision influencing

2. Management planning

3. Communication

4. Education and capacity development

5. Social development

6. Economic development

7. Equal rights and opportunities.

3.1.2 Selection of research methods

Assessing the quality of interaction with local constituents requires a combination of quantitative and

qualitative methods of assessment and interpretation of data:

Quantitative: Developing the scoring system, starting from the requirement to group the

various protected areas on a scale of interaction with the community from 1 to 5 (1 being

lowest); each of the levels correspond with a rank defined by the Standard Ranking Criteria:

from “little or no interaction” to “exemplary” level (see Standard Ranking Criteria table, Annex

A). Using a five-level scale for each of the questions in the assessment tools, it became possible

to calculate sub-indices (for each individual field of performance for each protected area) and

indices (for the entire performance of the protected area) as quantitative measures of

interactions with community.

Qualitative: The following methodology solutions have been applied towards monitoring the

quality of interactions:

a) Guided completion of questionnaires by protected area representatives which combines

survey and interview as research methods

b) Providing opportunity for face-to-face discussion with community respondents while

collecting their additional comments/inputs

c) Quality analysis of the data (obtained from the survey) and of inputs from respondents

and assessors based on previously defined standard ranking criteria

A participatory approach has been applied in developing and using assessment tools while

stimulating interactions between actors and stakeholders before, during and after the assessment.

This comprised the following:

Participatory evaluation of indicators and assessment tools (team of experts, WWF, DAP and partners).

Collecting feedback during the pilot assessment phase on the methodology from selected protected areas and communities as well as partners.

Collecting feedback on the methodology and approach used by assessors and partner organisations during the training of assessors for implementing tools and methodology of the assessment.

Organising the assessment through workshops with opportunities for interaction between

the community, the protected areas and experts on the spot.

8

The decision to use a combined methodology approach meant that both quantitative (survey) and

qualitative (interviews, guided group discussion, validation) methods were applied.

3.1.3 Research instruments

The following research instruments have been developed and applied:

A stakeholder analysis tool was used in first preliminary workshop as well as a part of

questionnaires for the final assessment.

Two questionnaires were developed: one for protected areas and one for local communities. Both

including the same type of questions with appropriate adaptions in its formulation. The protected

area manager was asked to complete one questionnaire while there were between 5 and 15

representatives of the community in each area, completing one questionnaire each (see

questionnaires in Annex B and C).

Protocols for assessors: one as guidance for assessors facilitating pilot workshops, with semi-

structured questions about the participants' opinion of the applied methodology and the quality of

tools; a guiding protocol for assessors to serve as reminder for the introduction of some sensitive

questions (from questionnaire, or those to be additionally discussed).

Table 1. Phases and steps of development and implementation of the assessment methodology

Steps Activities and methods

Tools Objectives Who

I. P

REP

AR

ATI

ON

Preliminary research

Reviewing existing information Scoping

Literature Scoping survey questionnaire, interview protocol

To get familiar with previous research and case studies from the region To collect preliminary data on protected area governance and collaboration with stakeholders in the respective region

Expert team

Developing instruments

Creating and evaluating of research criteria, indicators and questionnaires

Standard Ranking Criteria Results from scoping

To provide criteria and instruments to meet project goals and methodology approach

Expert team

Testing of methodology

Piloting Survey and facilitated discussion/ group meetings

Draft questionnaires for protected areas and local communities Draft guidelines for assessors

To test instruments and the methodology approach

Expert team

Recruiting and training of assessors

Selection of assessors Training

Final questionnaires for protected areas and local stakeholders Final guideline for assessors with scoring and reporting

To introduce assessors into the project, methodology; to practice specific steps of the process and to network

Expert team Assessors

9

Steps Activities and methods

Tools Objectives Who

templates

II. I

MP

LEM

ENTA

TIO

N

Conducting of assessment

Collating data Protected area and local community workshops Presentation Interviews Discussion Guided survey

PowerPoint presentations Final questionnaires for protected areas and local stakeholders

To introduce participants to the key concepts and the project itself To collect data and discuss issues of interactions between the protected area and the local community

Assessors

Analysis of results

Validation panel Scored questionnaires/indices Assessors' reports

To analyse and discuss the assessment results and experiences during the assessment process

Expert team

Reporting Scoring Description of impressions, recommendations

Reporting template Scoring template Scoring Instructions

To provide scores for each of the protected area and to group them accordingly; to make quality inputs about the protected area and local community interactions and capacities to improve

Assessors

Communicating the results

Reporting Meetings with protected areas Meetings with local communities Policy meetings

Final results To analyse results and to discuss their implications and further steps

Expert team Organiser Protected area managers Stakeholders Decision-makers

3.1.4 Preparation of the assessment

This stage of the methodology development required the engagement of experienced experts in

protected area governance and social science research methodology. Familiarity with the local and

regional context as well as with its legislation is also important for quality performance of the following

tasks.

a) Reviewing existing information: Analysis of the literature as well as of project results in the field, if

possible related to the respective region. Case studies on the analysed issues - community involvement

– from other areas can be valuable resource. Outcomes of this analysis can be used for final selection of

the questionnaire content and formulation of indicators.

b) Scoping: The purpose of this segment is to collect preliminary data on protected area governance and

collaboration with stakeholders in the respective region. It provides useful insights into ongoing

processes, strengths and weaknesses of interactions between protected area and local community in

specific social, cultural and specific context. It also serves to inform the design of instruments and in

particular the selection of priority issues to be covered.

10

A preliminary survey may be developed and distributed electronically or online to protected area

management organisations or conducted face-to-face within the regional gathering (workshop or

meeting). If possible, scoping of a community perspective may be carried through interviews with

stakeholders (selected in accordance with their field of activity and potential experience in cooperation

with protected area or interest in that), gathering basic information, such as: Do they cooperate with

neighbouring protected area? How frequently? What are the main areas of their collaboration and what

can be improved?

c) Developing of instruments: This is the core activity of the preparation for the assessment. Following

the above-mentioned criteria and methodology approach, survey instruments are carefully developed,

their contents based on formulated ranking criteria and outcomes of scoping and analysis activity. It is of

the utmost importance that the format of the questions follows the previously presented level of

engagement defined for this type of assessment.

d) Testing of methodology: The aim of this activity is to pilot instruments and evaluate previously

developed methodology approach and methods. It must follow the assessment procedure and

guidelines provided in advance (presented in the next chapter). This is usually done by experts engaged

to design the methodology. The selection of pilot areas should be carried out in close collaboration with

the organiser of the assessment and professionals familiar with the specific social-cultural and political

context and characteristics of protected areas.

The results of the piloting and the lessons learned serve to inform the final design of the research

instruments and guidelines for assessment.

e) Recruiting and training of assessors: The successful implementation of the methodology requires

recruiting skilled assessors (see Terms of Reference with selection criteria, Annex G). To ensure that they

will prepare and conduct the assessment following the approach and methodology designed, it is

necessary to provide them with training.

The objectives of the training are:

1. to familiarise assessors with the key principles and definitions embedded in the assessment

approach;

2. to introduce assessors to the methodology of the assessment;

3. to practice all necessary steps for the assessment;

4. to provide networking opportunities for the assessors and the team of experts.

This training also gives an opportunity to receive the assessors' first feedback on the methodology and

potential points of improvement. In addition, it provides an opportunity to plan future workshops and to

agree on the time-schedule communication arrangements during the assessment process.

3.1.5 Assessment process

Planning of the workshop

11

a) Organisation of the workshop

1. Draw up a list of invitees based on the criteria for selecting invitees to the workshops (see box:

“Who should participate at the workshop?” next page).

2. In coordination with the protected area managers, invite a representative from all stakeholder

organisations to ensure diversity amongst representatives of the local community, as defined by

the criteria.

3. Send out written invitations at least two weeks before the meeting with a clear explanation of

the meeting’s purpose, information about the venue and duration of the workshop (to adjust

the content to the letter sent previously by the WWF to all the protected areas).

4. Prepare in advance:

a) a presentation about the project goals, the key concepts and a methodology overview;

b) a presentation giving an overview of the agenda and steps that are going to be taken during

the workshop.

5. Equipment and materials needed:

a) Digital projector and screen, laptop and photo camera

b) Flipchart papers, post-it notes and marker pens, etc.

c) Hardcopies of questionnaires for protected areas and local community representatives

d) List of participants for recording who attended the workshop

6. Other logistic details:

a) Refreshments for participants

b) Two breakout rooms when participants work in two groups

Who should participate at the workshop?

For the Community Involvement Assessment methodology to work properly a careful selection of the

representatives of the protected area authority and the representatives of the local community is absolutely

essential.

Before starting the selection the protected area must have a clear picture of the following:

a) All the stakeholder groups relevant to the protected area: These are groups of people (not necessarily a

formal organisation) who have similar interests and influence in the protected area. They do not

necessarily reside within the boundaries of the protected area but may be using the area (either for

natural resources or recreation/tourism).

b) Who are the stakeholder groups to be considered key stakeholders, i.e. those stakeholder groups that

score at least medium or high for interest in and/or influence on the protected area?

c) Who are the representatives of the key stakeholder groups?

The above data can be extracted from any previously conducted stakeholder analysis but care should be taken

that the information is up-to-date and accurate. A stakeholder analysis may have been conducted previously

during the management plan development or in some other previous project. If the stakeholder analysis is not

12

available, the protected area authority should conduct it as an internal process, using the standard evaluation

procedure (for methodology example see: Ioniță & Stanciu, 2012).

To maximise the accuracy of the results and to ensure their credibility it is important that the selection process

is transparent and must allow and encourage involvement of all stakeholder groups. The workshop should

therefore be advertised by the usual information procedure, which is normally used for announcing events to

the local community so that all stakeholders are given a chance to participate. However, to ensure the quality

of the process and a quality representation of the key stakeholders, the protected area authority should make

an extra effort to invite by telephone, email or personally the representatives of the key stakeholder groups.

Special care must be taken to ensure the right balance among the key stakeholder groups so that there are

about equal number of representatives from each of the following sub-groups:

1. Stakeholders from geographically defined sub-units, e.g. villages or units within the municipality,

including the local-level administration representatives.

2. Special interest groups that have particular interests in the protected area (e. g. farmers groups,

shepherd groups, hunting clubs, fishing clubs, mountaineering clubs, etc.).

3. Stakeholders who largely depend on the protected area resources for their livelihoods (e.g.

agricultural, tourism or forestry businesses, owners of large parts of the land, etc.).

4. Marginalised groups, for example, women groups, youth, ethnic minorities, etc.

5. Local NGOs if not already covered by the above.

6. Ideally, the number of key stakeholder representatives attending the workshop should be no less than

5 and a maximum of 15.

7. When possible, gender balance (equal number of man and women) should be ensured.

8. It is important to involve all key stakeholders with a medium and high interest in the protected area

and not only those who are already frequently cooperating.

9. Representing the protected area authority, the workshop should include at least the following:

The director of the protected area authority or a person having the full mandate to represent

the organisation at the workshop.

The person in charge of/responsible for communications generally and particularly with the

local community.

The person in charge of/responsible for management planning of the protected area.

The person in charge of/responsible for education.

Collating background information on protected areas

The questionnaire for protected area authorities contains a section called “Background information” on

the protected area (year of designation, IUCN category, governance type, surface, yearly number of

inhabitants and visitors, details on the management plan). These data will be used in the evaluation

process as the size, type and other characteristics of the protected area may influence results.

The assessor should fill in these data prior to the workshop, and during the workshop, the protected

area representatives should only look through them and check their accuracy. These data can mostly be

13

found online on the official homepage of the protected area or in worldwide databases. For some

details the assessor should check the management plan (if it exists) or consult the protected area

authority.

Conducting the workshop

a) Opening of the workshop (plenary session)

Welcome and introduction (30 min):

Welcome participants.

Introduce yourself and invite team members to do so.

Ask representatives of the protected area to introduce themselves (names, functions/positions,

years of employment, etc.).

Ask representatives of stakeholders to introduce themselves (names, place of living, organisations

they represent, specific position in the organisation, years of engagement with the organisation).

Explain the purpose of the workshop (5 min):

to reach a common understanding of the key concepts of collaboration between the protected area

and local community;

to learn how each group perceives the current collaboration;

to discuss issues of common interest;

to contribute to the identification of capacity development needs and improvement of collaboration

in the future.

Invite all the participants to take an active part in this process (5 min):

It should be emphasised that this is great opportunity for all to learn more about each other’s needs and

ideas for future cooperation – so it should be used in the best way possible and if there are examples of

best practice these can be shared with others. Remind participants that there are no right or wrong

answers and that the scoring will not be used to judge their current work but to improve cooperation in

the future.

Introduction to the project:

Presentation about the project (5 min) - PowerPoint presentation developed by the team of consultants.

Introduction to the process:

Presentation of the steps that are going to be taken during the workshop: 5 to 10 min (detailed agenda).

Initiate a relaxed guided discussion about good practice examples

Those examples mentioned earlier when participants were asked to take an active part, examples of

previous cooperation, of specific characteristics of the area, of potentials for cooperation as perceived

by both groups. The purpose of this discussion is to warm up participants for completing the

questionnaires and to create a positive climate (10 to 15 min).

14

Ask the participants to gather again at the end

Meet again, as a group, after the group work for the short plenary session and ask those who finish first

to wait patiently for the other group.

Ask the participants to split into two groups

Divide the group into two, i.e. representatives of the stakeholders and those of the protected area.

Remind them how the questionnaires will be completed and open the possibility for questions and

answers (5 min).

b) Working in two groups

Protected area representatives - guided completion of questionnaire (60 to 90 min):

Put the questionnaire on the screen and provide each participant with one hardcopy.

Explain the procedure: Read out each question and ask for a reply. The protected area

representatives may nominate one of their group to be a rapporteur for one of the sections but

everyone in the group must have an opportunity to contribute or express his or her view if they do

not agree. If there is almost immediate agreement, the assessor can simply note down the reply. If

there is disagreement the assessor should facilitate a short discussion and then fill in the agreed

answer. Introduce each new section clearly and explain what it is. Identify who is going to be

responsible for the answers for each of the sections.

Note/write down any issues of disagreement or misunderstanding.

Close the working group and invite them to the break.

Local community group-guided completion of questionnaire (60 to 90 min):

Provide each participant with a hardcopy of the questionnaire.

Explain to the participants that they are going to complete the questionnaire section by section by

themselves.

Introduce each section and explain what it is about. Make sure all the terms are clearly understood

and all the questions are answered.

Monitor the process of completing the questionnaire. Do assist participants if there are any

difficulties in understanding the questions. Make sure they complete every single question so that

results will be valid and comparable, perhaps by walking around amongst the participants and

glance over their shoulders.

Note/write down issues of disagreement or misunderstanding.

Thank the participants for cooperation.

Close the working group and invite them to the break.

b) Short break

15 minutes, coffee, tea, a good opportunity for informal conversation and networking between the

participants.

c) Final plenary ( 15 minutes)

15

Summarise the workshop, reminding participants that their participation and answers will be

valuable not only for the analysis of engagement of communities by protected areas in the region

but also for improvement of capacities for that and sharing experiences within and outside the

Dinarides region.

Invite them to a short discussion about the process: Did they find some terms or questions not clear

enough, or confusing? How did they see the process? Did they meet someone new today? Did they

get any idea of potentials for future cooperation with protected area within this process, survey,

and introduction or simply during the conversation with assessors or other people? (5 to 10

minutes)

Open the opportunity for anyone to ask questions or give a comment if they like. (3 to 5 minutes)

Thank all the participants for attending this workshop, remind them that the results will be

disseminated to them and also used to benefit the region.

Close the workshop.

Data entry and analysis

The main output of the workshops are the completed questionnaires. Based on the answers and using

the scoring instructions, the assessors now have two important tasks:

Scoring the questionnaires after the workshop and

entering the scores in the scoring sheet.

a) Reporting

Summarised scores as well as other segments of report are to be incorporated into the reporting

template for each of the area/workshop (following the reporting template, provided in Annex D).

Analysis and sharing of results

a) Validation of results including meeting of Validation Panel

The analyses of the data and inputs from the assessment are to be carried out on both qualitative and

quantitative levels, by:

► Calculating scores and sub-indices (the level of individual sections) and indices (the level of

protected area performance) of interaction between protected areas and community.

► Comparative quality analysis of data obtained: quality analysis of the inputs from respondents

and assessors on: specific issues of interaction; specific needs for capacity improvement; best

practices described.

A critical part of the final assessment is the face-to-face meeting of a Validation Panel. The composition

of the Validation Panel is crucial for the success of the assessment process. If possible, the members of

the Validation Panel should consist of the team of experts engaged in the methodology development or

other knowledgeable professionals in the field.

16

Their key task is the qualitative assessment of the scores. Available for this assessment are two scores

for each section and for the total,

one based on the data from the protected area questionnaire and

the other one based on the date from the local community questionnaire.

The face-to-face meeting of the Validation Panel should employ the following process: The members of

the Panel familiarise themselves in more detail with each of the reports from the assessors. (If there is a

large number of assessor reports it does make sense to divide the reports amongst the members of the

Validation Panel so that each member can concentrate on just a few and study them carefully, then

reporting back on them during the Validation Panel meeting.)

The Validation Panel members look carefully at all the scores of each section and the total score for each

of the area. Taking into account all that is known about each protected area and following the validation

criteria set out below, the Validation Panel will arrive at a final ranking for each protected area. When

carrying out this qualitative assessment of the scores the Validation Panel will be guided by the

following validation criteria:

► First of all, the scores are judged against the Standard Ranking Criteria table.

► In particular, the Panel considers the score given by the local community, which is weighted in its

favour.

► The assessors’ comments are carefully weighed up and taking into account.

► The composition of those who participated in the workshop on behalf of the local community is also

given some weight.

► If there are still outstanding questions, the Validation Panel will consult the scoring sheets for

further details.

In particular, when the two scores (the one from the protected area and those from the local

community) show a large gap, this qualitative validation gives a result that best reflects the reality of the

situation on the ground, i.e. the interaction of the local community in the various sections of the

questionnaire. This is of crucial importance and underlines why the right composition of the Validation

Panel is essential.

b) Use of results

When all the work is completed the whole process will have yielded thousands of data points. These can

be used later for a great variety of purposes. In most cases, the data collected, analysed and validated

can be used in the short and medium term to assist the work on the following levels:

1. The main purpose of developing this methodology was to find a way to develop and strengthen

the relationships between protected areas and their local communities as well as the promotion

of sustainable development of the protected areas throughout the Dinaric Arc region. The

methodology makes it possible to rank all participating protected areas on levels between 1

17

and 5. These total rankings also yielded sub-rankings in seven sections, which were considered

indicative of each protected area’s involvement with its local community (decision-making,

management planning, communication, education and capacity development, social

development, economic development and equal rights and opportunities).

2. Once all the protected areas have a rank allocated to them it is then possible to draft

recommendations for a protected area to improve its community involvement by advancing to

a higher rank. These recommendations are provided in a separate document, a so-called

Capacity Development Plan, which contains specific recommendations for capacity building in

the local community, proposals for “quick wins” and examples of good practice. In addition, the

Capacity Development Plan includes various tables giving clear indications of how to advance

from one rank to the next.

3. The work outlined in 1 and 2 can be further advanced by grouping together all protected areas

ranked at the same level (1 to 5) in accordance with the different sections (decision-making,

management planning, communication, education and capacity development, social

development, economic development and equal rights and opportunities). It is possible to

organise workshops, seminars and other learning or knowledge-sharing opportunities to

advance within each section and thus, finally, to a higher total ranking.

4. The results also enable an analysis of general trends and gaps observed in all protected areas

from one country/national level analysis; such an analysis allows an insight into the weaknesses

and needs of protected areas within one country for improvement in the

governance/cooperation with local communities, as well as of the national policy in the field.

c) Communication of results

As outlined above, the analysis of the data and observed trends as well as contributions made by

assessors through their reports, serve as the basis for recommendations provided by the team of

experts. These recommendations are provided in a separate report, the Capacity Development Plan,

which, if implemented, would progress local community involvement right across the project area. This

plan should be available to all the stakeholders involved in the assessment as well as to decision-makers

and other protected areas in the respective region. The analysis shared with them will not contain the

raw data.

It will be up to the organisation initiating the project to decide if it wants to share the actual ranking

results with the protected areas and its key stakeholders. Whilst publishing the rank of each protected

area could cause difficulties, there are also arguments in favour of total transparency.

Once the analysis is completed, the best way of communicating the results or the improvement plans

would be through face-to-face meetings with protected area representatives. These meetings can be

used to define together further steps in sharing and implementing results/recommendations with their

stakeholders.

The results can also be used for advocating and cooperation with decision-makers in order to improve

nationwide policies or even a legal framework which, otherwise, would not encourage greater

18

participation by the local community in decision-making and influencing. Furthermore, they can give

support to protected areas and communities for the sake of their better cooperation and development.

In addition, baseline information and gaps identified through data analysis and interpretation may serve

as a solid foundation for developing project proposals, seeking for financial support in order to

implement recommended improvements in the field of community involvement.

19

4. References

Approaching Conservation from a Rights-based Perspective, WWF Sweden’s position and framework for

action, Draft, 21st September 2013

Borrini – Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A., Oviedo, G. (2004), Indigenous and local communities and protected

areas – Toward Equity and Enhanced Conservation. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN.

Brown, Jessica, Mitchell, Nora,and Beresford, Michael (eds.) (2005), The Protected Landscape Approach:

Linking Nature, Culture and Community, IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, ISBN: 2-8317-0797-8.

Council of Europe (2002), European Landscape Convention (https://goo.gl/tjVShR).

Dudley, N. (Ed.) (2008), Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, Gland,

Switzerland: IUCN.

Feyerabend G. B. et al. (eds.), (2004), Sharing power: Learning by doing in co-management of natural

resources throughout the world, Tehran: IIED and IUCN.

Ioniță, A. & E., Stanciu (2012), Participatory Management of Protected Areas in the Carpathian

Ecoregion. Part II: Guidelines for stakeholder involvement in protected area management, 1st Edition

Braşov: “Green Steps” Publishing House.

Lockwood, M., Worboys, G. L. and Kothari A. (eds) (2006), Protected area management: a global guide,

London-Sterling, V. A.: Earthscan.

Worboys, G. L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S. and Pulsford, I. (eds) (2015), Protected Area

Governance and Management, Canberra: ANU Press.

UN (1987), Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Retrieved from

http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm.

https://goo.gl/tjVShR

http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm

Annex A: Standard Ranking Criteria

Standard Ranking Criteria for Protected Areas

Ranking level →

1 LITTLE OR NO INTERACTION: No discernible engagement with key stakeholders, influential actors or the local community. Perhaps start of engagement process, beginning of internal discussions regarding protected engagement.

2 DEVELOPING: Some input defining the agenda and formulating first plans. Awareness has been raised by protected area. Key stakeholders and representatives of the local community have noticed some opportunities for engagement.

3 MODERATELY DEVELOPED

There is growing awareness and higher visibility amongst key stakeholders. External knowledge or awareness has been raised. Foundations have been built for new relationships and influences. Some formal procedures are in place.

4 WELL-DEVELOPED: Protected area decision-makers are beginning to be influenced by key stakeholders. New relationships/influences are bearing first fruit. Key stakeholders are informed of key decision-makers’ position (e.g. plans, constraints and procedures).

5 EXEMPLARY: Involvement of key stakeholders in policy and practice issues; stakeholders have firm position on protected area agenda; outreach is a firm part of the protected area agenda and implemented in practice; there is no discernible discrimination on any issue.

I. Decision-making and decision-influencing

Key stakeholders have no

discernible engagement

with important decision-

making or advisory bodies

for the protected area.

There are no formal or

informal meetings where

issues are discussed in-

depth with key

stakeholders. There is no

forum which gathers all the

stakeholders of the

protected area.

The local community or a

wide range of its

representatives including

key stakeholders are not at

all encouraged to

participate in meaningful

discussion/debate towards

tangible outcomes.

No key stakeholders or

representatives from the

local community are being

specifically consulted on

particular policy/practice

aspects of their concern.

Public and non-public

Key stakeholders have

some discernible input,

mainly informal, into some

decision-making or

advisory bodies for the

protected area. There are

informal but no significant

formal meetings where

issues are discussed in-

depth with key

stakeholders. There may be

a forum of all or most

stakeholders but it hardly

meets.


wide range of its


key stakeholders are

informally involved in

some meaningful

discussion/debate and

provided with information

if interested.

They are occasionally

consulted on particular

policy/practice aspects of

their concern but the

protected area does not

Key stakeholders have

some formal discernible

engagement with important

decision-making or

advisory bodies for the

protected area. There are

formal or informal

meetings where issues are

discussed in-depth with key

stakeholders. There is a

forum of all stakeholders

which meets at least twice a

year.

The key stakeholders are

provided with general

information before they

participate in some public

discussions.

Key stakeholders are

sometimes but not regularly

consulted in general terms

on particular

policy/practice aspects of

their concern.


authority stakeholders of

the protected area are

sometimes given a voice to

Key stakeholders are

integrated in some important

decision-making or advisory

bodies of the protected area

and are meeting three to four

times a year to discuss some

issues in-depth with the

protected area. A forum with

all key stakeholders meets at

least 3 or 4 times a year.

Policy/practice issues are

more often than not “on the

table” for meaningful

discussion/ debate with key

stakeholders who are usually

consulted on those issues.

Key stakeholders are being

consulted in general terms on


aspects of their concern most

of the time.


authority stakeholders of the

protected area are offered

formal and informal

consultation to make their

position known in most of the

cases. They usually have high

Key stakeholders are fully

integrated in important

decision-making or advisory

bodies of the protected area.

At these regular formal

meetings issues are discussed

in-depth with key

stakeholders.

There are regular non-formal

contacts with the local

community.

There is a forum of all key

stakeholders and it meets

frequently. The protected area

authority systematically

improves the participatory

capacities of key stakeholders

and local community.

Key stakeholders are being

specifically consulted on


aspects of their concern as a

matter of course.

Both non-public and public

authority stakeholders have a

formal voice to make their

position known. They are

equal partners with protected


the protected area have no

formal voice to make their

position known. They do

not have influence on

decision-making.

have to take notice of their

views.

Non-public and public


the protected area have still

no formal voice to make

their position known. They

influence on decision-

making is low.

make their position known.

They have some but no

strong influence on

decision-making.

influence on decision-

making.

area authority in decision-

making.

II Management planning


wide range of its


key stakeholders are not at

all involved in developing

the protected area’s

management plan.


wide range of its


key stakeholders are not

involved in implementation

of the management plan.


wide range of its



informally consulted during

the development of the

management plan.

The management plan

contains tasks which could

be devolved to the key

stakeholders or local

community if the protected

area were minded to do but

it has not been done as yet.


wide range of its



informally involved in

developing the

management plan.

Techniques and methods

are being developed (e.g.

joint decision-making;

dispute resolution; positive

solutions) to encourage

local community and

stakeholder engagement in

the management plan

process.

The management plan

contains a few tasks that are

devolved to key

stakeholders or other

groups in the local

community.


wide range of its

representatives including key

stakeholders are involved in

developing some aspects of

the management plan.

Techniques and methods are

in place (e.g. joint decision-

making; dispute resolution;

positive solutions) which

encourages local community

and stakeholder participation

in the management plan

process.

The management plan is not

just for the protected area

authority but includes a

minority of tasks that are

devolved to the local

community including key

stakeholders and local

groups.


wide range of its


stakeholders are fully

involved in developing the

management plan. Their

influence on its content is

very high.

A full range of techniques and

methods are in use (e.g. joint

decision-making; dispute

resolution; positive solutions)

making the management plan

process fully participative and

an example of good European

practice.


wide range of its


stakeholders and local groups

are fully involved in

implementing the

management plan.

III. Communication

The protected area has not

assigned any particular

person to communication

tasks.

The protected area has no

formal communication

plan.

It does not engage in any

meaningful way with the

local community.

There are some people

assigned by the protected

area to work on

communication when

needed, but not formally.

The protected area is

planning a formal

communication plan.

In its efforts to engage with

the local community they

The protected area has

assigned a particular person

to communication tasks for

less than 0.5 full-time

equivalent.

The protected area has a

formal communication plan

which is generally

considered to be sufficient,

or has activities and


assigned between 0.5 and 0.9

full-time equivalent to this

task.

Its communication plan

engages with the local

community when it is

considered necessary by the

protected area and is

considered by the local


assigned 1 full-time

equivalent or more to the

communication task.

Its communication plan

engages fully with the local

community and has been

shown to work successfully.

Staff or other assigned by the

protected area to be in charge

Those communication

interactions it does provide

are not perceived by key

stakeholders or

representatives from the

local community as

working successfully.

The protected area has no

functional grievance and

dispute procedure which

has been shown to work in

practice.

It does not engage

successfully with the local

community and key

stakeholders nor with

journalists and the media.

It does not provide good

information for the local

community and the key

stakeholders, the

information is considered

to be very poor.

The protected area never

takes part in community

events.

The protected area does not

engage either experts or

inhabitants in research/

monitoring activities.

use only one of the

communication types listed

in the questionnaire.


developed a formal

grievance and dispute

procedure for internal

conflicts but it has not been

tested yet.

The local community is

aware of the protected

area’s communication

efforts and considers them

in need of improvement.

It does engage with

journalists and the media

but its efforts are not

considered successful.

It provides some

information to key

stakeholders and the local

community but the

information is generally

considered to be poor.

The protected area

participates sometimes but

rarely in community events.

The protected area

authority from time to time

cooperates with experts in

research/monitoring

activities.

resources in its annual

operational budget to cover

this.

Protected area

communication staff uses at

least 2 out of 6


in the questionnaire to

engage with the local

community.

The local community is

aware of the protected

area’s communication

efforts and considers them

to be average.


formal grievance and

dispute procedure for its

dealings with key

stakeholders and the local

community in place but the

procedure has not been

used.

It does engage with the

local community and key

stakeholders and its efforts

are considered to be

average.

It does engage with

journalists and the media

and its efforts are

considered to be average.

The protected area takes

part in community events

but not on a regular basis.

The protected area

authority regulary

cooperates with experts in

conducting

research/monitoring

activities.

community as fairly

successful.

The person/staff in charge of

communication does engage

with the local community and

the key stakeholders, using at

least 3 out of 6


in the questionnaire. The


stakeholders feel nevertheless

that the level of engagement

could be improved.


formal grievance and dispute

procedure for both internal

and internal conflicts.

It engages successfully with

journalists and the media but

does not always provide good


community and key

stakeholders. Much of the

community is well informed.


regular part in most

community events.

The protected protected area

cooperates with experts and

also involves local people in

research/ monitoring

activities

of communication use at least

four out of 6 listed

communication types.

The protected area has a fully

functional formal grievance

and dispute procedure which

has been shown to work well

in practice.

The protected area engages

successfully with journalists

and the media; good


community and the key

stakeholders is provided. The

local community is informed

well about conservation goals

of the protected area.


regularly part in community

events.

The protected area regularly

cooperates with experts and

the local community in

research and monitoring,

disseminating its results to

them.

IV. Education and capacity development

The protected area has not

assigned any particular

person to education tasks

in the protected area.


have an education plan for

its local community.


allocate any funds for the

education activities.

It does not reach out to

local schools/educational

facilities.

There is no structured

regular capacity

improvement of the staff.

There is no official

programme of

volunteering, awards,

training, etc.

Out of the different

educational activities in the

questionnaires, the

protected area provides

none of them.

The local community and

key stakeholders seem

unaware of the values of

the protected area.


organised some people to

work on education in

protected areas, but none of

them formally assigned.


beginning to prepare an

education plan for its local

community.


planning to start allocating

funds for the education

activities.

It has plans to reach out to


facilities.

The protected area offers

only one of the

opportunities listed in the

questionnaire as activities

to be provided for the local

community.


planning to develop a

programme for improving

staff capacity.



questionnaires, the

protected area provides two

or three of them.


planning to develop for the

local community specific

promotional material about

protected area values.



beginning to become aware

of the values of the

protected area.



to education tasks for less

than 0.5 full-time

equivalent

The protected area has an


community but it has not as

yet been fully implemented.


allocating funds for the

education activities

occasionally, mainly

through some projects.

It has begun to reach out to


facilities.

The protected area offers at

least two of the




community.

The protected area

authority occasionally

organises capacity

improvements of the staff.



questionnaires, the


over half of them.

The protected area

occasionally provides

specific information about

its values, mainly through

projects or campaigns. The


stakeholders are becoming

more and more aware of the

values of the protected area.


assigned between 0.5 and

0.9 full-time equivalent to

this task.

It has a good education

plan for its local

community but the local

community is not very

aware of it.


actively seeking for grants,

donations, etc., in order to

allocate funds for the

education activities during

each year.

The protected area

authority initiates

cooperation with the

majority of education

institutions.

The protected area offers

at least two of the




community.

There is a programme for

structured improvement of

the staff capacities the

implementation of which

is just beginning.

Out of the 7 different

educational activities in

the questionnaires, the


less than half of them.

The information material

tailored to the local

community is widely

disseminated. The local

community and key

stakeholders are aware of

the values of the protected

area but cannot see them in


assigned 1 full-time

equivalent or more to this

task.

It has a fully functional


community.


systematically allocating

funds for the education

activities from its core

budget.

The protected area

authority works with local

schools/ educational

facilities on the basis of

mutual interest and

initiative.

There is a well-developed

programme of

volunteering, awards,

training, etc.

Structured improvement of

capacities of the staff is

part of the protected area’s

regular practice.

Out of the 7 different

educational activities listed

in the questionnaires, the


more than half of them.


key stakeholders are fully

aware of the values of the

protected area and

contribute to its promotion.

practice.

V. Social development

The local community

considers the protected

area as providing no social

benefits.

The protected area is not

active in communicating

the range of possible social

benefits (e.g. foraging,

firewood, clean air,

downstream flooding,

water supply, recreation

etc.)


seen to be active in

promoting sustainable

tourism; current tourism

could easily reduce the

quality of life .


seen to be supporting and

contributing to the the

cultural and social

development of the local

community.

The protected area is seen

as providing at least two of

the social benefits listed in

the questionnaire.


currently working on plans

for actively promoting

sustainable tourism as

current tourism could still

reduce the quality of life of

the local community.


preparing plans to support

actively, manage and

communicate the range of

possible social benefits

(e.g. foraging, firewood,

clean air, downstream

flooding, water supply,

recreation etc.) which

contribute to the cultural

and social development of


The protected area is seen

as providing about half of


the questionnaire.


agreed working plan for

actively promoting

sustainable tourism.

However, it has not been

fully implemented as yet so

that current recreation and

tourism activities could still

reduce the quality of life of



prepared plans to support

actively, manage and

communicate the range of

possible social benefits




recreation etc.) which

contribute to the the

cultural and social


community but these plans

have not yet been fully

implemented.

The protected area is seen as

providing more than half of


the questionnaire.

The protected area is seen as

being somewhat beneficial

regarding social benefits and

is following its agreed plans

to manage and communicate

the range of social benefits




recreation etc.)

The protected area supports

sustainable tourism actively

but still does not make a

significant contribution to the

cultural and social


community.

The protected area fully and

actively promotes sustainable

tourism, thus supporting and

not reducing the quality of life

of the local community. The

effects of this are clearly

visible recognised.

The local community

considers the protected area

very beneficial regarding

social benefits and together

agree that the range of

possible social benefits (e.g.

foraging, firewood, clean air,

downstream flooding, water

supply, recreation etc. are

managed well and understood

by all.

The protected area makes an

important contribution to the

cultural and social


community.

VI. Sustainable economic development

There is no person in the

protected area organisation

responsible for dealing

with sustainable economic

development.


There is no person in the

protected area organisation

responsible for dealing with

sustainable economic

development but the

protected area can make a



to sustainable economic

development of less than

0.5 full-time equivalent.


The person responsible for

dealing with sustainable

economic development has

been assigned this task

between 0.5 and 0.9 full-time

equivalent

The person responsible for

dealing with sustainable

economic development has

been employed full-time and

is successfully involved in

projects promoting

have a strategy for an

active promotion of


development.


involved in promoting a

protected area brand.


actively promote


development.

There are no meaningful

contacts between the

protected area and the

sustainable tourism

business community.


promote local products in

and/or surrounding the

protected area.

person available if needed.


preparing a strategy for the

active promotion of


development.


making active preparation

to become involved in

promoting a protected area

brand.

The protected area

promotes sustainable

economic development in

at least two of the areas

listed in the questionnaires

There are very limited,

mostly legally necessary,

contacts between the

protected area and the

sustainable tourism

business community.


planning to promote local

products in and/or

surrounding the protected

area.

prepared a strategy for the

vigorous promotion of


development but

implementation of this plan

is at the beginning.


prepared plans to be

actively involved in

promoting a protected area

brand.

The protected area

promotes sustainable

economic development in

at least three of the areas

listed in the questionnaires.

There is formal legal and

financial support of the

protected area to the

sustainable tourism

business community.


beginning to promote local

products in and/or


area.

There is a chapter or section

of the management plan

which addresses the

promotion of sustainable

economic development. It

does, however, not have the

same importance as other

parts.

The protected area is one of

the partners in promoting a

protected area brand but not

in a leading role.

The protected area promotes


development in half the areas

listed in the questionnaire.

There are different forms of

support by the protected area

to the sustainable tourism

business community but the

business community feels

they could be improved (e.g.

joint marketing, product

development).

Local products are promoted

in and/or surrounding the

protected area but there is

room for improvement.


development.

A prominent chapter or

section of the management

plan addresses the promotion

of sustainable economic

development and is being

fully implemented.

The protected area is a

leading partner in promoting a

protected area brand.

The protected area promotes


development in the majority

of areas listed in the

questionnaire.

There are frequent and regular

contacts and joint activities

between the protected area

and the sustainable tourism

business community.

Local products are well

promoted in and/or


area.

VII. Equal rights and opportunities


have any equal opportunity

and non-discrimination

policy.

There are no areas of

operation in the protected

area authority where the

principles of equal

opportunity and non-

discrimination are applied

systematically.

The protected area shows

clear signs of institutional

discrimination/does not

implement non-

discrimination policy?


cooperate with

organisations which

oppose discrimination.


planning an equal


discrimination policy.

There are still at least four

of the areas listed in the

questionnaire, where

principles of equal


discrimination are not

applied.

The protected area still

shows signs of institutional

discrimination in practice.


planning to cooperate with

organisations opposed to

discrimination.


equal opportunity and non-

discrimination policy for

some of the discrimination

areas listed in the

questionnaires.

There are still at least three

of the areas listed in the

questionnaire where

principles of equal


discrimination are not

applied.

The protected area shows

some signs of institutional

discrimination.


begun to cooperate with

organisations opposed to

discrimination in at least

half the areas listed in the

questionnaire.


equal opportunity and non-

discrimination policy in

the majority of its areas of

operation.

The policy principles

apply to a majority of the

areas listed in the

questionnaires. However,

there are some areas which

are not yet free from

institutional

discrimination.

Implementation is on-

going in most of the areas.

The protected area

cooperates to a significant

degree with organisations

opposed to discrimination

in all the areas listed in the

questionnaire.

The protected area has a fully

functioning equal opportunity

and non-discrimination policy

in all its areas of operation.

The policy principles apply to

all aspects of non-

discrimination listed in the

questionnaires.

The policy principles are fully

implemented in all areas,

particularly as regards

employment policy, i.e. the

organisation is free from

institutional discrimination.

The protected area cooperates

fully with organisations which

are opposed to discrimination

in all the areas listed in the

questionnaire.

Annex B: Questionnaire for protected area authorities CONNECTING LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND

PROTECTED AREAS

Community Involvement Assessment –

Questionnaire for the protected area authorities

INTRODUCTION

This survey is designed to gather information about the current level of engagement between local communities and

protected areas across the Dinaric Arc region. The Park Dinarides Association with WWF Adria, through the

Protected Areas for Nature and People project, are working together to strengthen the relationship between protected

areas and their local communities. It is widely recognised that through partnership and cooperation with local

communities improved economic, environmental and social benefits will be achieved.

There are two questionnaires: one designed to capture information from the protected area perspective and a second

one designed to capture information from the local communities. It is anticipated that one questionnaire will be

filled in from each protected area (approximately 80 throughout the region) and about 5 to 10 questionnaires will be

filled in by representatives of local communities (approximately 400 to 800 throughout the region).

Your help in completing the questionnaire below is very much appreciated. This way we will be able to assess the

interaction between the protected area and its local communities as well as identify examples of good practice.

Following the assessment of all of the questionnaires from the protected area and the local community the results

will be evaluated and analysed so that a knowledge-sharing plan with clear recommendations can be developed and

implemented with the aim to improve skills and processes.

COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE

In the questionnaire you will find the following areas which are of particular importance for the community

involvement in the protected area management and governance:


II. Management planning

III. Communication in the protected area



VI. Economic development


Your honest answers about activities and fields of interactions with your local stakeholders will be valuable and

much appreciated. It will be used only for the recommendations of future steps towards improving capacities of

protected area authorities and their local stakeholders, for the sake of fruitful mutual cooperation and improved

quality of protected area and local development.

Before you begin answering questions, here is some prefilled basic information about your protected area. Please

review it and if necessary make amendments and then proceed to the core part of the questionnaire. In the last field

please write the names of the persons filling in the questionnaire and their job positions.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Some of the baseline information about the protected area has already been filled in below. Please check if all the

information is correct.

a) Name of the protected area:

b) Year of designation:

c) IUCN category:

d) Governance by: government government and private private local communities

e) Number of staff: employees

f) Surface of protected area (in hectares): ha

g) Approximate number of inhabitants in the protected area: inhabitants

h) Approximate number of visitors per year:

i) Percentage of privately owned land within the protected area: %

j) Is there an approved management plan for the protected area :

Yes

Under development

No

k) The period for which the current management plan is made:

l) The authority responsible for adopting the management plan:

m) Names and job positions of the persons filling in the survey:

In the following questionnaire we use the word “key stakeholder” quite frequently by which we mean those bodies

(formal or informal groups) with whom you are likely to work most often. In the table below we have listed some of

them which we have encountered in many protected areas in the Dinaric Arc region.

These are the kind of stakeholders we want you to think of when trying to answer the questions that follow. If there

are some other key stakeholders which are particularly important to your protected area please feel free to add them

to the table.

EXAMPLES OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS IN PROTECTED AREAS

Non-public-authority actors:

Communities as a whole that are located within

and/or around the protected area

Community-based organisations (e.g. farmers‘

cooperatives)

Specific social groups within communities that

tend to be marginalised in decision-making


NGOs and other special-interest groups

(conservation organisations, hunting clubs,

fishing clubs, other organisations or

“communities of interest”)

Private sector organisation, for profit

Private sector organisation, not for profit

Public-authority actors:

State agencies and expert institutions, including

nature conservation institutes


Education institutions on any level of education



Outside agencies (e.g. an NGO) delegated by public

authority

Others:

I. DECISION-MAKING AND DECISION-INFLUENCING

1. Does the protected area authority have representatives from the local community on decision-making or advisory bodies (e.g. protected area board, scientific board, committees, working groups, decision-influencing panels or similar)?

They have no discernible engagement with important decision-making or advisory bodies

They have some discernible input, mainly informal, into some decision-making or advisory bodies

They have some formal discernible engagement with important decision-making or advisory

bodies

They are an integral part of some important decision-making or advisory bodies

They are fully integrated in the important decision-making or advisory bodies

2. Are there regular meetings of these decision-making bodies with local community members? (Please answer this question if your answer to the previous was in the “yes” options.)

None at all

Once a year or less

Twice a year

Three to four times a year

They meet more frequently

3. Apart from meetings, are there other, perhaps non-formal, contacts between you and representatives of the local community?

Not at all

Once a year or less

Twice a year


More frequently

4. Is there a joint body (for example, a forum or similar) for all key stakeholders and the protected area authority to meet face-to-face at regular intervals?

It does not exist

It exists and meets once a year or less

It exists and meets twice a year

It exists and meets three to four times a year

It exists and meets more frequently

5. Are non-public-authority key stakeholders encouraged to participate in defining/ developing policies concerning the protected area?

No, we do not encourage participation

We only provide information when they ask for it

We send them general information

We send them detailed information and consult with them

We organise meetings or workshops

6. Are key stakeholders involved in discussion and decision-making on issues like, for example, cooperation with local businesses and local people, climate change, community resilience, tourism flows, etc.?

No

Yes, we provide useful information in our websites/newsletters but do not ask them for their views

Yes, interested people/groups are sometimes consulted

Yes, we consult them on each important issue before we make final decision

Yes, we organise meetings with specific groups that have an interest in the issue, discuss it and make joint

decision

7. How would you evaluate the degree of involvement and influence of key stakeholders on the work of the protected area? Please select: 1 no perceived involvement or influence, 2 – low, 3 – medium, 4 – high, 5 – fully involved.

Stakeholder category

Degree of stakeholder

involvement

Level of stakeholder

influence

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Non-public-authority key stakeholders including

local communities inside or near the protected

area

Public-authority key stakeholders

II. MANAGEMENT PLANNING If the preparation of the management plan has not yet been started, you may skip this section of questions.

8. Which of the key stakeholder groups were/are involved in the process of developing the last

management plan of your protected area? Please mark stakeholder categories in the first column and then estimate their degree of involvement and their influence to the final management plan, with 1 – not at all, 2 – informally consulted, 3 – informally involved, 4 – involved in some aspects, 5 – fully involved.

NON-PUBLIC AUTHORITY STAKEHOLDERS



involvement

Stakeholder level of

Influence

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Communities as a whole that are located within

and/or around the protected area

Community-based organisations (e.g. farmer

cooperatives)

Specific social groups within communities that

tend to be marginalised in decision-making


NGOs and other special-interest groups

(conservation organisations, hunting clubs or

organisations)

Private-sector for-profit organisations

Private sector organisations, not-for-profit

Other:

PUBLIC-AUTHORITY STAKEHOLDERS



involvement

Level of stakeholder

influence

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

State agencies and expert institutions, including

nature conservation institutes


Education institution on any level of education



Outside agencies (e.g. an NGO) delegated by

public authority

Other:

9. Are non-public key stakeholders involved in the implementation of the management plan?

No, they are not involved

They are not yet involved but it is planned in the future

Yes, they are involved in a few tasks

Yes, they are involved in significant number of tasks

Yes, they are fully involved in the implementation of the management plan

III. COMMUNICATION IN THE PROTECTED AREA

10. Has the protected area authority assigned a person responsible for communications?

No person is assigned this task

There are people assigned by the protected area to work on communication when needed, but

not formally

The protected area has assigned a particular person to communication tasks for less than 0.5

full-time equivalent

Yes, between 0.5 and 0.9 full time equivalent is assigned this task

1 full time equivalent or more is assigned this task

11. Is there an approved communication plan for the protected area to engage with local communities?

No, not yet prepared

It is under development

There is a formal communication plan which is generally considered to be sufficient

A plan has been developed which engages with the local community when it is considered necessary by

protected area

Yes, there an approved plan which engages fully with the local community

12. What types of planned communications are regularly used in your contact with local communities? (Please choose yes or no for each of the options or add an explanation if you choose “Other”.)

Types of communication Yes No

Information on our website

Information through the press media

Newsletter, mailing list or similar for local people

Social media

Information office for local people with regular open hours

Visits to the local communities (e.g. mobile information office)

Other:

13. Does the protected area authority have an approved mechanism, such as a formal grievance and dispute procedure, for avoiding and resolving conflicts?

No

It exists for resolving conflicts within the protected area organisation (staff, volunteers, Board members, etc.)

It exists for resolving conflicts between the protected area authority and the public

It exists for both internal and external conflicts

It exists for both internal and external conflicts and it is verified in practice as effective for resolving both

internal and external conflicts

14. Are there regular contacts between the protected area and media outlets/journalists?

No, we do not have contacts at all

They contact us in case of emergency or accidents

We contact them approximately once a year

Yes, we contact them whenever there is something important

Yes, we have regular mutual contacts

15. What is the quality of reports made by media and journalists about work of the protected area?

Very poor

Mostly poor

Average

Very good

Excellent

16. How well is the local community informed about the management goals of the protected area?

Not informed at all

The whole community is poorly informed

Only smaller part of the community is informed, most not

Most of the community is well informed

The whole community is well informed

17. Does the protected area authority take part in events organised by a local community?

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Takes part In most of the events

Takes part regularly

18. Does the protected area authority cooperate with experts, institutions and inhabitants in conducting research and/or monitoring programmes?

No, it is not part of the protected area’s work

Yes, the protected area cooperates with experts from time to time

Yes, the protected area regularly cooperates with experts

Yes, the protected protected area cooperates with experts and also involves local people in

research/monitoring activities

The protected area regularly cooperates with experts and the local community in research and

monitoring, disseminating its results to them

IV. EDUCATION AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

19. Does the protected area authority employ staff responsible for education?

No person is assigned this task

There are people assigned by the protected area to work on education when needed, but not

formally

The protected area has assigned a particular person to education tasks but for less than 0.5 full-

time equivalent

Yes, between 0.5 and 0.9 full time equivalent is assigned this task

Yes, 1 full time equivalent or more is assigned this task

20. Is there an approved education plan for the protected area to engage with local communities?

No, not yet developed


Yes, recently developed or in the first stages of implementation

It is developed and engages with some parts of the local community

Yes, a plan has been approved and fully implemented

21. Does the protected area authority allocate funds to education from the following sources (please tick all appropriate boxes)?

No, we do not

We are considering that

Occasionally, through some projects

We are actively seeking for donations and invest it in education during the year

It is planned and allocated systematically from our core budget

22. Is there a well-developed cooperation between the protected area and local schools/educational facilities?

No

Not yet but planned

Yes, we began cooperation with those who expressed interest

Yes, we initiated cooperation with majority of the education institutions

Yes, it is result of our mutual interest and developed relations

23. What opportunities does the protected area authority provide to the local community? (Please choose “Yes” or “No” for each option and add and explanation if you choose “Other”.)

Opportunities Yes No

Traineeships

Internships

Scholarships

Students work or seasonal employment for adults

Volunteering opportunities

Training opportunities

Other (specify):

24. Are there structured regular activities to improve the capacity of staff (training to improve skills, knowledge, competences, etc.)?

No

Not yet but planned

Yes, sometimes, depending on opportunities

Yes, a programme is in the early stages of implementation

Yes, it is part of our regular practice

25. What kind of educational activities are regularly organised for the local community (including volunteers)? (Please choose “Yes” or “No” for each of the options and add an explanation if you choose “Other”.)

Activities Yes No

Lectures

Seminars

Conferences

Workshops

Courses (including language courses)

Field or study visits

Other:

26. Is there specific information/material for the local community produced to make them aware of the values of the protected area?

No, we do not yet have such materials

Not yet, but planned

Occasionally, within some projects or campaigns

Yes, there are widely disseminated materials specifically for the local community

Yes, there are widely disseminated materials specifically for the local community and these are jointly

developed and used to promote protected area values

V. SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

27. Please indicate the most important social benefits that the protected area contributes to the local community; these are not necessarily listed here in the order of importance. (Please select “Yes” or “No” for each of the options or add an explanation if you choose “Other”.)

Benefits Yes No

Food (mushrooms, honey, berries, etc.)

Wood (timber, firewood)

Health (plants, herbs)

Flood and erosion protection/prevention

Cultural/spiritual

Recreation and tourism

Other:

28. Does the protected area authority actively promote sustainable tourism, which supports and does not reduce the quality of life of local communities in and/or around the protected area?

No

Not yet but we are making preparations for it

We have developed programmes which are in early stage of implementation

We do but community is still not fully involved

Yes, we promote sustainable tourism very actively and the effects are visible in our community

29. Does the protected area authority actively support and contribute to the cultural and social development of local communities in and/or around the protected area?

No

Not yet but we are planning to work on that

Yes, we have just started to work in that direction

We support it but still do not actively contribute

Yes, we support and contribute very actively

VI. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

30. Does the protected area authority employ staff responsible for sustainable economic development?

No particular person is assigned this task

There are people assigned by the protected area to work on it when needed, but not formally

Less than 0.5 full time equivalent is assigned this task

Between 0.5 and 0.9 full time equivalent is assigned this task

1 full time equivalent or more is assigned this task

31. Does the protected area authority encourage activities which support sustainable economic development?

No

Not yet but we plan to work on it

There is a chapter about it in our management plan but the implementation is in its early stage

There is a chapter about it in our management plan but we have not fully implemented it yet

The plan is fully worked out and has the full engagement of the local community

32. Does the protected-area authority cooperate with local businesses by actively supporting the development of a specific protected area brand?

No

Not yet but we plan to work on it

Yes, branding is developed and in the early stages of implementation

Branding is developed but our role in cooperation with local businesses could be improved

Yes, branding is well developed and established in practice

33. In which way does the protected area authority support local businesses to promote sustainable economic development?

Yes No

Providing workshops and lectures

Direct financial support

Project proposal development

Developing business skills

Product marketing

Investing in businesses

Joint bodies/forum

Other:

34. What types of contacts are there between the protected area authority and sustainable tourism businesses in and around the protected area?

Yes No

Granting permits/concessions


Advertising or marketing

Developing a joint product between the protected area and a

sustainable tourism business

Joint bodies/forum

Other:

35. Is there an organisation of local businesses or not-for-profit organisations in your community, promoting local products?

No

No, but we plan to improve promotion of local products

Such organisations are currently under development

Yes, there is, but the cooperation between the actors must be improved

Yes, there is such a well-functioning body/organisation

VII. EQUAL RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

36. Does the protected area authority have up-to-date equal opportunity and non-discrimination policy statements?

No

Not yet but we plan prepare such statements

We have statements related to some discrimination aspects

We have developed non-discrimination and equal opportunity policies for most areas of our work

Yes, they are incorporated in all the official documents of the organisation and implemented in practice

37. Equal opportunity and non-discrimination policy statements apply to the following (please reply to this question only if you answered yes in the previous question):

Yes No

Gender

Ethnic or national origin

Race or colour

Sexual orientation

Physical or mental disability

Religion

Age

Other defining characteristics (e.g. background, skills,

expertise, experience, etc.):

38. Do you consider that the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination policies have been applied in practice?

No

Not yet, but we are planning to work on it

They are applied but not systematically

They are incorporated in key segments of operation, such as employment

They are integrated in all the segments of work of the protected area authority.

39. Does the protected area authority cooperate with organisations providing opportunities for those listed below:

Yes No

Women

Elderly

Ethnic minority groups

People with disabilities

Other:

Thank you very much for taking the time to fill in this questionnaire.

Annex C: Questionnaire for representatives of local communities

CONNECTING LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND PROTECTED

AREAS

Community Involvement Assessment –

Questionnaire for the local communities

INTRODUCTION

This survey is designed to gather information about the current level of engagement between local communities and

protected areas across the Dinaric Arc region. The Park Dinarides Association with WWF Adria, through the

Protected Areas for Nature and People project, are working together to strengthen the relationship between protected

areas and their local communities. It is widely recognised that through partnership and cooperation with local

communities improved economic, environmental and social benefits will be achieved.

There are two questionnaires: one designed to capture information from the protected area perspective and a second

one designed to capture information from the local communities. It is anticipated that one questionnaire will be

filled in from each protected area (approximately 80 throughout the region) and about 5 to 10 questionnaires will be

filled in by representatives of local communities (approximately 400 to 800 throughout the region).

Your help in completing the questionnaire below is very much appreciated. This way we will be able to assess the

interaction between the protected area and its local communities as well as identify examples of good practice.

Following the assessment of all of the questionnaires from the protected area and the local community the results

will be evaluated and analysed so that a knowledge-sharing plan with clear recommendations can be developed and

implemented with the aim to improve skills and processes. COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE

In the questionnaire you will find the following areas which are of particular importance for the community

involvement in the protected area management and governance:


II. Management planning

III. Communication in the protected area



VI. Economic development


The following questions are related to aspects of cooperation between you/your organisation and the protected area.

Your opinion is very much appreciated and valuable for creating a realistic picture in planning any improvements.

Please answer the questions purely from your perspective and what you have experienced. There are no right or

wrong answers – it is your own opinion which counts.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

a) Name of the protected area:

b) Do you live within the protected area:

Yes

No

c) Your name (optional):

d) Name of organisation you represent (if applicable):

e) Your position in the organisation you represent (if applicable):

f) Male/female:

g) Age:

15 to 24

25 to 44

45 to 64

65+

h) What is your occupation?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i) Employment

Employed

Self-employed

Unemployed

Retired

In the questionnaire we use the word “key stakeholder” quite frequently by which we mean those bodies (formal and

informal groups) with whom the protected area is likely to work most often. You or the organisation you represent

are considered to be one of those important key stakeholders.

EXAMPLES OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS IN PROTECTED AREAS

Non-public-authority actors:

Communities as a whole that are located within and/or

around the protected area

Community-based organisations (e.g. farmers‘

cooperatives)

Specific social groups within communities that tend to

be marginalised in decision-making processes (e.g.

women, ethnic minorities)

NGOs and other special-interest groups (conservation

organisations, hunting clubs, fishing clubs, other

organisations or “communities of interest”)

Private sector organisation, for profit

Private sector organisation, not for profit

Public-authority actors:

State agencies and expert institutions,

including nature conservation institutes


Education institutions on any level of

education



Outside agencies (e.g. an NGO) delegated by

public authority

I. DECISION-MAKING AND DECISION-INFLUENCING

1. Is your organisation directly involved in protected area’s decision-making or advisory bodies (for example, protected area board, scientific board, committees, working groups, decision-influencing panels or similar)?

Not at all

From time to time we make inputs, mainly informal

We are formally involved in some of decision-making or advisory bodies

We are integrated in most of decision-making or advisory bodies relevant to our interest

We are integrated in all decision-making or advisory bodies relevant to our interest

2. How active are you in those bodies?

Not active at all

We receive the information when I contact them

We are generally informed about its work

We are informed and actively participate in those bodies

We are very well informed, actively participate and influence decisions

3. Apart from meetings, are there other contacts between the protected area and your organisation or group?

Not at all

Once a year or less

Twice a year


More frequently

4. Is there a joint body (for example, a forum or similar) for all key stakeholders and the protected area authority to meet face-to-face at regular intervals?

It does not exist

It exists and meets once a year or less

It exists and meets twice a year

It exists and meets three to four times a year

It exists and meets more frequently

5. How often do you or representatives of your organisation attend the meetings of this joint body?

We do not participate

Once a year or less

Twice a year


More frequently

6. In which way does the protected area authority encourage you to participate in policy development and in decision-making concerning the protected area?

They do not encourage our participation at all

We receive some information from time to time

We are generally informed but not familiar with participation rules and opportunities

We are provided with information of our concern and usually consulted

They provide workshops and meetings where we can learn how to best participate

7. In which way does the protected area authority consult you or your organisation on issues in areas of your concern?

They do not consult us

They only publish information on their website

They provide information when we ask for it

They send us detailed information and consult us

They organise meetings, discuss issues and make joint decisions

II. MANAGEMENT PLANNING If the preparation of the management plan has not yet been started, you may skip this section of questions.

8. How much was your organisation involved in the process of developing the last management plan of your protected area?

We were not involved at all

We are informed through the usual channels (newsletters, website or similar)

We were consulted on several occasions

We were invited to take part in some public events

We were involved as equal partner and participated in drafting the document

9. Are you or your organisation involved in the implementation of the management plan?

No, we are not involved

We are not yet involved, but it is planned in the future

Yes, we are involved in some tasks

Yes, we are involved in significant number of tasks

Yes, we are fully involved in the implementation of the management plan

III. COMMUNICATION IN THE PROTECTED AREA

10. Do you know whom to contact if you have issues of concern with the protected area authority?

No

There are some people working on that but we are not sure who is the right contact

We understand there is a person but it is not always possible to get in contact

It is mostly clear whom to contact

Yes, it is always clear whom to contact

11. How do you rate the communication efforts of the protected area?

Not good at all

Needs to be improved

Sufficient

Good

Excellent

12. Does the protected area authority regularly use the following types of communication in contacting you or your organisation?

Types of communication Yes No Information via their website Information through the press media Newsletter, mailing list or similar for local people Social media Information office for local people with regular open hours Visits to the local communities (e.g. mobile information office) Other:

13. When conflicts arise between you or your organisation and the protected area authority, how efficiently are they resolved?

We did not yet have such cases

Some cases were resolved but some are still pending

They tend to resolve it better than before

The most of it were resolved in a reasonable time by the protected area authority

They are always resolved promptly and satisfactory

14. How good are the media reports on the protected area related issues?

Very poor

Mostly poor

Average

Very good

Excellent

15. How relevant are the media reports on the protected area regarding issues for local community?

Not relevant at all

In the main, not relevant

Generally relevant

The majority of them reflect well what is going on in local community

Completely relevant

16. How well do you think the local community is informed about the management goals of the protected area?

Not informed at all

The whole community in general is poorly informed

Only a small part of the community is informed, most are not

Most of the community is well informed

The whole community is, on the whole, well informed

17. Does the protected area authority take part in events organised by a local community?

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Takes part In most of the events

Takes part regularly

18. Does the protected area authority cooperate with experts, institutions and inhabitants in conducting research and/or monitoring programmes?

No, they don’t cooperate

I think they sometimes cooperate with experts

Yes, they regularly cooperate with experts

They cooperate with experts and also involve local community in monitoring activities

They cooperate with both experts and community, presenting regularly results of it to the public

IV. EDUCATION AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

19. Do you know whom to contact in the protected area authority when you want to share ideas and discuss questions of education and capacity development?

No

There are some people working on that, but we are not sure who is the right contact




20. Does the protected area authority regularly provide education activities for local community?

No, they don’t provide it

Not sure, they might plan that for the future

Yes, they have recently started

Yes, they provide it for some time to some groups

Yes, it is part of their regular practice

21. Can local organisations or local communities call on funds for education distributed by the protected area?

No, there is no such opportunity

Not sure but they might plan that for the future

Occasionally, through some projects

Yes, they usually manage to assure funds for it during the year

Yes, they plan it and open the call at the same time each year

22. Has the protected area authority developed cooperation with local schools/educational facilities in your area?

No

I am not sure but they might plan for it

Yes, they just began cooperation with those who expressed interest

Yes, they initiate cooperation with majority of the education institutions

Yes, they have excellent relations and mutual cooperation with education institutions

23. What opportunities does the protected area authority provide to the local community? (Please choose “Yes” or “No” for each of the options or add an explanation if you choose “Other”.)

Opportunities Yes No Traineeships Internships Scholarships Students work or seasonal employment for adults Volunteering opportunities Training opportunities Other (specify):

24. Do you consider that protected area staff is sufficiently skilled to manage the protected area as intended?

No, they lack skilled staff

I think that they need significant improvements of competences

They are competent in general

Yes, they are mostly competent

Yes, they are entirely competent

25. What kinds of educational activities does the protected area organise for the local community (including volunteers)? (Please choose “Yes” or “No” for each of the options or add an explanation if you choose “Other”.)

Activities Yes No

Lectures

Seminars

Conferences

Workshops

Courses (including language courses)

Field or study visits

Other:

26. Does the protected area produce specific information/material to make the local community aware of the natural and cultural values of the protected area?

No

Some, but mainly not made for local community

Occasionally, within some projects or campaigns

Yes, there are widely disseminated materials specifically made for the local community

Yes, we jointly develop and use it to promote protected area values

V. SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

27. Please indicate the most important benefits that the protected area offers to the local community. (Please select “Yes” or “No” for each of the options or add an explanation if you choose “Other”.)

Benefits Yes No

Food (mushrooms, honey, berries, etc.)

Wood (timber, firewood)

Health (clean air, medicinal herbs)

Flood and erosion protection/prevention

Cultural/spiritual

Recreation and tourism

Other:

28. Does the protected area authority actively promote sustainable tourism, which also supports and does not reduce the quality of life of local communities in and/or around the protected area?

No

I am not sure, they might plan for it

They have started only recently

Yes, they do, but we are still not actively involved

Yes, they do and we actively cooperate in that

29. Does the protected area authority actively support the cultural and social development of local communities in and/or around the protected area?

No

Rarely

They support some activities

They do support it but still do not actively contribute

Yes, they support and contribute very actively

VI. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

30. Do you know whom to contact in the protected area authority when you want to share ideas and discuss questions of economic development?

No

There are some people working on that, but we are not sure who is the right contact




31. Does the protected area authority encourage activities which support sustainable economic development?

No

I am not sure, they might plan for it

They have started only recently

Yes, they do, but not actively

Yes, very actively

32. Does the protected area authority cooperate with local businesses by actively supporting the development of a specific protected area brand?

No, branding is not yet developed

Not sure, they might plan for it

Yes, branding is developed and in early stages of implementation

Yes, branding is developed but protected area authority not as active as it should be

Yes, branding is well developed and established in practice

33. In which way does the protected area authority support local businesses to promote sustainable economic development?

Yes No

Providing workshops and lectures


Project proposal development

Developing business skills

Product marketing

Investing in businesses

Joint bodies/forum

Others:

34. In which way does the protected area authority support local businesses to promote sustainable tourism?

Yes No

Granting permits/concessions


Advertising or marketing

Developing a joint product between the protected area and a

sustainable tourism business

Joint bodies/forum

Other:

35. Is there an organisation of local businesses or a non-profit organisation in your community, promoting local products?

No

Not sure but it might be planned


It exists, but its functioning needs to be improved

Yes, there is such a body/organisation

VII. EQUAL RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

36. Does the protected area authority have an up-to-date equal opportunity and non-discrimination policy to avoid all forms of discrimination?

No

Not sure but I think they might plan to develop it

They have statements related to some discrimination aspects

They have developed non-discrimination and equal opportunity policies for most areas of their work

Yes, they are incorporated in all the official documents of the organisation and it is seen in practice

37. If yes, do you know which topics are covered by the policy?

Topic Yes No

Gender

Ethnic or national origin

Race or colour

Sexual orientation

Physical or mental disability

Religion

Age

Other defining characteristics (e.g. background, skills,

expertise, experience, etc.):

38. Do you consider that principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination policies have been applied in practice?

No

Not sure, they might start working on that

They are applied but not systematically

They are incorporated in key segments of operation, such as employment

They are integrated in all the segments of work of the protected area authority

39. Does the protected-area authority cooperate with organisations providing opportunities for those listed below?

Yes No

Women

Elderly

Ethnic minority groups

People with disabilities

Other:

Thank you very much for taking the time to fill in this questionnaire.

Annex D: Reporting template for assessors

CONNECTING LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND PROTECTED AREAS

Community Involvement Assessment – Assessor’s reporting template

1. Country (in English language): 2. ISO Code (See notes below):

3. Name of the protected area:

(a) Local language:

(b)English language:

4. Place, venue and date of the workshop:

5. Duration of the workshop (in hours):

6. Number of participants:

Stakeholder balance Gender balance:

▸ Protected area staff: ▸ Males:

▸ Local community representatives: ▸ Females:

7. Specific topics or questions discussed (any difficulties, points of tensions, general impression of the

group and the atmosphere (max. 800 characters with spaces).

8. Description of one best practice example (max. 800 characters with spaces):

▸ Title:

▸ Description of the activity: how was the community engaged, what was the main activity and its

purpose, is that finished or still undergoing, what are experiences and lessons learned, main message

to others.

9. Names of the assessors and their contact email addresses.

Annex E: Scoring Instructions for assessors

Questionnaire for local communities

Questions Instructions

a) Name of the protected area Choose from the list in the scoring sheet2

b) Do you live within the protected area 0 – No 1 – Yes

c) Your name (optional) Leave empty

d) Name of organisation you represent Leave empty

e) Your position in the organisation you represent 1- President; 2 -Member of the Board; 3- Member

f) Male/female 1-Male; 2-Female/ chose from the options in the scoring sheet

g) Age 1-15 – 24; 2-25 – 44; 3- 45 -64; 4-65+/ choose from the

list in the scoring sheet

h) What is your occupation 1- Student; 2- Worker; 3- Farmer; 4 -Clerk; 5 – Professional/ Choose from the scoring sheet options

i) Employment 1- Employed; 2-Self-employed; 3- Unemployed; 4 – Retired/ Choose from the scoring sheet options

Q 12, 23,25,27,33,34,37,39 0-No; 1- Yes All the other questions

1-5

Questionnaire for protected areas

Questions Instructions

a) Name of the protected area Choose from the list in the scoring sheet

b) Year of designation Type the year

d) IUCN category 1-No, 2-1a, 3-1b, 4-2, 5-3, 6-4, 7-5, 8-6

e) Number of staff Type the number

f) Surface of protected area (in hectares) Type the surface in ha

g) Approximate number of inhabitants in the protected area

Type the number

h) Approximate number of visitors per year Type the number

i) Percentage of privately owned land within the protected area

Type the percentage

j) Is there an approved management plan for the protected area

1- yes; 2- under development; 3-no

k) The period for which the current management plan is made

1- 1 year; 2- 5 years; 3-10 years; 4 – there is no management plan

l) The authority responsible for adopting the management plan: name

Type the authority

m) Names and job positions of the persons filling in the survey

Leave empty

Q 12, 23,25,27,33,34,37,39 0 - No; 1 - Yes

All the other questions

1 - 5

2 Please mark each completed questionnaire in the following way: country code, name of protected area and for local

community questionnaires number of the respondent (for example: ALB4 Lura National Park 01; ALB4 Lura

National Park02, etc.)

Annex F: Glossary

Connecting Local Communities and Protected Areas

Glossary*

Term used Local language term Definition

Advisory board/Advisory group

A body which consists of representatives from interested parties, e.g. representatives from villages, counties, conservation groups, NGOs, recreation and tourist associations, trade associations, chambers of commerce, etc.

Capacity development A conceptual approach to social or personal development that focuses on understanding the obstacles which inhibit people, governments, international organisations and non-governmental organisations from realising their development goals while enhancing the abilities that will allow them to achieve measurable and sustainable results. Also sometimes referred to as community capacity building.

Capacity development plan A tailored document for Dinaric Arc protected areas to develop organisational and people skills such as improved performance, innovation, the sharing of lessons learned, integration, and continuous improvement through a structured plan. Also referred to as knowledge-sharing plan.

Communication plan A strategic document in which a protected area sets out what needs to be communicated, what requires change, the audience, key messages and methods of delivery.

Community Involvement Assessment

Title of methodology developed for the WWF Adria project Protected Areas for Nature and People (PA4NP) aiming to gather information about the current level of involvement of local communities and protected areas across the Dinaric Arc region. It will create a


baseline from which a set of proposals will be developed to promote and share good practice.

Community resilience Community resilience is a measure of the sustained ability of a community to utilise available resources to respond to, withstand, and recover from adverse situations.

Council A group of people who come together to consult, deliberate, or make decisions.

Cultural and social development

A concept where protected areas incorporate cultural and social perspectives, improve their relationships with local people and communities, and garner additional, more sustainable support from the general public.

Cultural values In the context of protected areas this refers to values that different cultures, religions and the general public place on natural features of the environment which have great meaning and importance for them.

Dinaric Arc Region A region of South-Eastern Europe covering Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Croatia, Kosovo*, Macedonia, Slovenia and Serbia. *Without prejudice to the position or status and in line with UNSCR 1244/99 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.

Economic benefits Benefits quantifiable in terms of money and measured in financial terms such as revenue, net cash flow, net income. Can benefit individuals, businesses and/or communities/society.

Education Plan In this context, a written education plan designed to set out learning objectives for various audiences which a protected area wishes to influence. This often refers to the process of environmental education that allows individuals to explore environmental issues, engage in problem-solving, and take action to improve the environment.

Environmental benefits Benefits quantifiable in terms of improving the quality of air, water, habitats, plants and animal species. Can also benefit people’s enjoyment and living standards.

Equal opportunities The absence of discrimination, as in the workplace, based on race, colour, age, gender, sexual preference, national or ethnic origin, religion, or mental or physical impairment.

European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas

A Charter developed by the EUROPARC Federation, the pan-European Association for protected areas in Europe, in order to provide a practical management tool that enables protected areas to develop tourism sustainably. See also “Sustainable tourism”.

European Landscape Convention

A treaty devoted to all aspects of European landscape. Applies to the entire territory of the Parties. Aimed at: the protection, management and planning of all landscapes and raising awareness of the value of a living landscape.

Forum A type of meeting, usually with participants from diverse backgrounds, in which people


can talk about a problem or matter especially of public interest. In the context of protected areas often refers to a body of key stakeholders to discuss matters without having formal decision-making powers.

Grievance and dispute procedure

In this context, a formal procedure, approved for use within a protected area, to resolve conflicts, grievances and disputes within the organisation or between the public and the protected area authority.

Governance A concept comprising interactions among structures, processes and traditions that determine how power is exercised, how decisions are taken on issues of public concern and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say. It is about who is taking decisions, who will manage it, who will participate in management planning, who will benefit and how it is organised.

Internship The position of a trainee or student who works in an organisation, often without pay, in order to gain work experience or satisfy requirements for a qualification.

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature – the world conservation body.

Key stakeholders Formal and informal groups or individuals with whom the protected area is likely to cooperate most often and may have developed relations.

Knowledge-sharing plan See “Capacity development plan”.

Level of engagement a) A tool developed by WWF to help develop skills and techniques to build healthy,

lasting, and trustful relationship with stakeholders, including local communities. The

approach to help achieve good stakeholder engagement is through a series of five

steps:

I. Understanding and engaging stakeholders

II. Getting started with stakeholders

III. Participatory problem solving

IV. Stakeholders as advisors

V. Co-management approaches

b) The approach developed specifically for the Community Involvement Assessment; it

recognises two general levels of participation: 1) involvement and 2) influence and

within it, qualitatively different, five stages of engagement:

1) no involvement at all


2) information-receiving

3) information-sharing

4) consultation

5) influence on decisions through active participation.

Local community Community in general is defined as “the individuals and interest groups that live in a

locality”. In the context of protected areas, the key stakeholders and inhabitants from the

territory or vicinity of a protected area. May also include those who do not live in a

protected area but have interests in the protected area or are directly affected by its

management.

Management Management is the process of assembling and using sets of resources in a goal-directed manner to accomplish tasks in an organisation. There are usually four functions of management that can be applied to protected area management: planning, organising, leading and evaluating.

Management plan The single most important plan for a protected area covering everything the area does, setting the vision, objectives and policies.

Non-public authority actors Key stakeholders in protected areas from the private and NGO sectors; may include: communities as a whole that are located within and/or around the protected area; community-based organisations (e.g. farmers’ cooperatives); specific social groups within communities that tend to be marginalised in decision-making processes (e.g. women, ethnic minorities).

Park Dinarides A network association of protected areas of the Dinaric Arc Region dedicated to improving, promoting and supporting natural and cultural values of protected Dinaric regions, and to the implementation of best practices of sustainable development and management. The Park Dinarides network consists of more than 70 protected areas in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Croatia, Kosovo*, Macedonia, Slovenia, and Serbia. *Without prejudice to the position or status and in line with UNSCR 1244/99 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.

Positive discrimination The practice or policy of favouring individuals belonging to groups which suffer discrimination or the act of giving advantage to those groups in society that are often treated unfairly.

Protected area According to the IUCN definition: “A clearly defined geographical space, recognised,


dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”. Protected areas can take on many different forms, e.g. national parks, nature parks, wilderness areas, community-conserved areas, nature reserves, privately-owned reserves, etc.

Protected area authority The legal body in charge of managing a protected area.

Protected Areas for Nature and People (PA4NP) project

A WWF-funded project specifically for the 80+ Dinaric Arc Parks in the wider Dinarides region. Its purpose is to help connect protected areas and their local communities to ensure that biodiversity and livelihoods in this region are protected and enhanced. The Community Involvement Assessment will create a baseline in 2017 from which a set of proposals will be developed to promote and share good practice.

Public-authority actors Key stakeholders in protected areas from the public sector, usually government-related; may include state agencies and expert institutions, including nature conservation institutes; state research institutions; education institutions on any level of education; regional development agencies; outside agencies (e.g. an NGO) delegated by public authority.

Rights-based approach An approach to achieve a positive transformation of power relations among the various key stakeholders and actors, aimed at strengthening capacity and empowering individuals and organisations. The Protected Areas for Nature and People (P4NP) project includes the principles of a rights-based approach to conservation including a strong focus on gender equality and non-discrimination, building on local knowledge and understanding of how best to incorporate positive discrimination for vulnerable and marginalised individuals and groups.

Social benefits In this context, a range of benefits that are derived from the presence of a protected area including improving opportunities, income and services for local communities.

Stakeholder In this context, all those who have influence on, or can be affected by, the management process of the protected area. In general, any person, organisation, body or group with an interest or concern in a protected area. See also “Key stakeholders”.

Sustainable development

“Development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Our Common Future, 1987). It rests on three pillars: sustainable economic, social and environmental development.

Sustainable economy An economy that is economically viable, environmentally sound and socially responsible.

Sustainable tourism A form of tourism which meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunity for the future. Also a way of organising any type of


tourism development in a sustainable manner. Sustainable tourism is supportive of and does not reduce the quality of life of local communities in and/or around the protected area.

Tourism (visitor) flows A generic term which covers the performance and impact of tourism, e.g. the volume and value of tourists/visitors (social, economic and environmental), patterns, spending and satisfaction.

Traineeship Typically, a type of workplace-related education and training programme, usually leading to qualifications in a particular type of job.

*This glossary was compiled to aid assessors in explaining terms to their audience at the time of the assessment. None of these definitions are necessarily

comprehensive.

Annex G: Terms of Reference for assessors

Essential activities/tasks to be undertaken

a) Attend assessor training workshop (2 days). b) Jointly (with co‐colleague assessor) plan and manage the efficient organisation of both the

protected area and local community assessment process. c) Pre‐fill basic data for both the protected area and local community questionnaires. d) Prepare and undertake facilitated interviews helping recipients come to a conclusion/agreement. e) Receive completed questionnaires from the protected area and the local community stakeholders

and insert data into the Excel table/online questionnaires. f) Prepare report on the process including a draft ranking of scores for the validation panel to review. g) Contribute to dissemination of the results.

Selection criteria for assessors a) Knowledge (general) of the protected area management and governance in the respective region. b) Familiarity with characteristics of protected areas (in country), including local community issues,

aspirations of stakeholders, etc. c) Understand and practice the principles of a Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA). d) Experience in facilitating stakeholder workshops (e.g. at least five years). e) Excellent interpersonal and communication skills. f) Experience in conducting social surveys using questionnaires. g) Ability to speak and read the language in which the facilitation meetings will be conducted. h) Fluency in speaking and reporting in English*. i) Provide unbiased evaluation, analysis and reports. j) Able/willing to travel. *If project team consists of experts from English-speaking countries.

methodology manual - parks dinarides · nature park), miljenko gašparac (risnjak national park),...

Documents