rj the world heritage management effectiveness · • be outstanding examples representing major...

1 Third draft: The World Heritage Management Effectiveness Workbook

RJ

How to build monitoring, assessment and reporting

systems to improve the management effectiveness

of natural World Heritage sites

The World Heritage

Management Effectiveness

Workbook: 2007 Edition

Preface

Third draft: The World Heritage Management Effectiveness Workbook

2

This workbook has been developed by the Enhancing Our Heritage – Monitoring and Managing for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites project - a six-year UNESCO/IUCN project funded by the United Nations Foundation. Enhancing our Heritage commenced in 2001. The project tested assessment tools and funded monitoring activities and adaptive management interventions in nine natural World Heritage sites in Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Other organisations involved in the project include the University of Queensland, The Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Institute of India, the USDA Forest Service and government agencies and NGOs associated with each project site.

3rd draft February 2007 This manual has been written by Marc Hockings, Sue Stolton, Jose Courrau, Nigel Dudley, Jeff Parrish, Robyn James, Vinod Mathur and John Makombo. This third

draft of the workbook has been considerably revised following field testing

and feedback from the sites taking part in the Enhancing our Heritage

project. The input of site managers and project participants is gratefully

acknowledged.

Preface


3

Preface

Natural World Heritage sites are recognised by UNESCO as some of the finest ecosystems on Earth. Given the significance of these sites, it is critical that managers have the information needed to manage them effectively and that the global community has confidence that site values are being maintained. The Enhancing our Heritage project, supported by the United Nations Foundation, is improving monitoring and assessment in natural World Heritage sites. The project team is working with staff at nine World Heritage sites in Africa, Asia and Latin America1 to develop and test assessment methods looking at management systems and processes as well as social and ecological impacts. The approach builds on the World Commission on Protected Area Framework for Assessment of Protected Area Management Effectiveness, which is based around analysis of the whole management cycle, including context (importance and threats), planning, inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. The project is developing and testing a series of tools to help managers and stakeholders assess current activities, identify gaps and discuss how problems might be addressed. The workbook and tools were developed from a wide range of experiences in developing assessment methods for protected areas and World Heritage sites in particular. Many of the tools in the workbook draw from the experience of the assessment system developed for Fraser Island World Heritage site in Australia and from the field testing by WWF and IUCN of assessment methods developed in Central Africa, in particular at the Dja World Heritage site in Cameroon. The tools for identifying objectives and threats and for assessment of biodiversity health draw on those developed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in the USA and South America. The tools in this third draft of the workbook have been field-tested and revised, in co-operation with managers and partners, in the nine sites participating in the Enhancing our Heritage project. The insights of those using the tools in these sites (which vary greatly biologically and in their size, level of funding and staffing and knowledge base) have been invaluable in developing this publication. 1 The sites are: Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles; Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda; Canaima National Park, Venezuela; Kaziranga National Park, India; Keoladeo National Park, India; Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve, Honduras; Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal; Sangay National Park, Ecuador and Serengeti National Park, Tanzania.

Preface


4

The workbook and the assessment tools are being further applied and field tested. A final version of the workbook will be produced and published at the end of the project, and the workbook and associated tools will also be available in electronic form. The World Heritage Management Effectiveness Workbook is one of the major outputs of the Enhancing our Heritage project (see www.enhancingheritage.net for more details), and aims to provide:

• a brief explanation of the WCPA framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas;

• an overview (section one) of how to carry out assessments; and • details of assessment tools (section two) that can be used to assess the

effectiveness of management of World Heritage sites. This current version does not include examples of completed assessments. However, the initial assessments completed by most of the sites taking part in the project using the first version of the workbook can be downloaded from the project website at: http://www.enhancingheritage.net/docs_public.asp

Marc Hockings

Enhancing our Heritage Project Manager

February 2007

Section 1 Contents


5

Contents

Preface 3

Section 1 What are Natural World Heritage Sites? 6 Management Effectiveness Assessment 7

Section 2 The Assessment Tools 18 • How Appropriate is the Site’s Design? 20 Tool 1: Identifying Site Values and Management Objectives 22 Tool 2: Identifying Threats 29 Tool 3: Relationships with Stakeholders/Partners 35 Tool 4: Review of National Context 42 Tool 5: Assessment of Management Planning 45 Tool 6: Design Assessment 55 • How Appropriate are the Management Systems and

Processes?

62

Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs 63 Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes 67 • Are Management Objectives being met and Values

Conserved?

83

Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation 85 Tool 10: Work/Site Output Indicators 87 Tool 11: Assessing the Outcomes of Management – Ecological Integrity

90

Tool 12: Assessing the Outcomes of Management – Achievement of Principal Objectives

101

Glossary

104

Acknowledgements 105

Section 1 What are Natural World Heritage Sites?


6

Section 1:

What are Natural World Heritage Sites? Natural World Heritage sites protect areas of ‘outstanding universal value’ for science, conservation or natural beauty. They have been placed on the World Heritage list because they meet one or more of the ten criteria used to assess “outstanding universal value”. Natural world heritage sites meet one or more of the following four criteria2 relating to natural heritage values: • contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty

and aesthetic importance (WH criterion vii) • be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth’s history,

including the record of life, significant ongoing geological processes in the development of land forms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features (WH criterion viii)

• be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological and

biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals (WH criterion ix)

• contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in situ

conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation (WH criterion x).

Given their significance, it is critical that managers have the information needed to manage sites effectively, so that their values are maintained. World Heritage signatory States have already implemented a ‘World Heritage in Danger’ list, reactive monitoring missions by IUCN and requirements for periodic reporting by State Parties. But these ‘external’ mechanisms, however valuable, cannot replace the need for regular monitoring and assessment by site managers. In most cases, Natural World Heritage sites are also designated as protected areas (national park or other reserve) under national legislation. It is important that the monitoring and assessment system also take account of objectives and management systems established for these other management designations.

2 The ten criteria cover both cultural and natural heritage sites. For a full list of criteria see http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/

Management Effectiveness Assessment

Section 1 Management Effectiveness Assessment


7

Management effectiveness evaluation aims to help managers improve conservation and management practices. It is defined as the assessment of how well protected areas are being managed – primarily the extent to which they are protecting values and achieving goals and objectives. The term management effectiveness reflects three main ‘themes’ in protected area management: • design issues relating to both individual sites and protected area systems; • adequacy and appropriateness of management systems and processes; and • delivery of protected area objectives including conservation of values. Large amounts of money, land and human effort are being invested in protected area acquisition and management around the world. The declaration of a protected area and well intentioned efforts to manage it do not however always guarantee the conservation of its values. Monitoring threats and activities affecting a protected area and using the results to manage for challenges, threats and pressures is essential for improving conservation success. Assessing management effectiveness and applying the results for adaptive management is at the core of good protected area management. Assessments enable managers and stakeholders to reflect on their experience, allocate resources efficiently, and plan for effective management in relation to potential threats and opportunities.

Why Evaluate Management Effectiveness? There is a growing concern amongst protected area professionals that many protected areas including some natural World Heritage sites are not achieving their objectives and in many cases, losing the values for which they were established. Therefore, the need to assess and improve the effectiveness of protected area management has become a high priority throughout the global community. For example, the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Programme of Work for Protected Areas (February 2004) calls on Parties to implement management effectiveness assessments for at least 30 per cent of their protected areas by 2010. Demands on managers of protected areas to report on the status of their site have also increased. Management effectiveness assessments can provide information necessary to fulfil reporting requirements. For example, global commitments like the Millennium Development Goals and the CBD’s goal to: “achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss ……” both require governments to report on the state of their countries protection of biodiversity.



8

The World Heritage Convention also has particular reporting requirements through its system of periodic reporting and reactive monitoring. All World Heritage sites are required to produce state of conservation reports. Other conventions, regional processes, individual governments and donor organisations impose various reporting requirements on managers which require a range of information, both in terms of data to support funding applications and for reporting on the use of funds. Finally, a variety of stakeholders, from businesses to local people, should also be regularly informed on the status of a neighbouring World Heritage site. Systems are thus needed to assess the effectiveness of management and to provide the information to fulfil various reporting needs. The differing situations and needs for protected areas however require different methods of assessment, and as a result a number of assessment tools have been developed to guide and record changes in management practices. A uniform theme to these assessments has been provided by IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Framework for Assessing the Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas (see diagram), which aims both to give some overall guidance in the development of assessment systems and to encourage basic standards for assessment and reporting.

This workbook uses the framework to develop a range of assessment tools that can be used by natural World Heritage site managers to build a comprehensive system of management effectiveness.

The WCPA Framework

As important as

reporting requirements

are, the assessment of

management

effectiveness should

primarily assist

managers in their work

– so that protected

areas achieve the

objectives for which

they were established.



9

The Workbook is based on the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Framework for Assessing the Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas (see box overleaf). The framework sees management as a process or cycle with six distinct stages, or elements: � it begins with establishing the

context of existing values and threats,

� progresses through planning, and

� allocation of resources (inputs), and

� as a result of management actions (process),

� eventually produces goods and services (outputs),

� that result in impacts or outcomes.

Workbook Structure

The framework suggests that an assessment of management effectiveness should include each of these six elements; which cover the three key aspects of protected area management: design, management and delivery of objectives. The workbook is thus also organised according to this structure: • How appropriate is the site’s design?

Which looks at: – the context in which the World Heritage site has been set up and is being

implemented; and – the planning, both in terms of site design and management planning.

• How appropriate are the management systems and processes?

The WCPA Framework for

Assessing the Management of

Protected Areas The framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas was developed by the Management Effectiveness Task Force of WCPA. The Task Force was set up in 1997 with the mission to focus attention on the issue of management effectiveness and to look at options for evaluation. Rather than developing a single, global system, the Task Force concentrated on a ‘framework’, to provide overall guidance for those developing assessment methods and to encourage basic standards for evaluation and reporting. For more information see: Hockings, M., Stolton S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. and Courrau J. (2006) Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management of protected areas, 2nd Edition World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland The framework can be downloaded from: www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/pubs/guidelines.htm#effect2



10

Which looks at: – what inputs are needed; and – what management processes are being used, i.e. how management is

structures and conducted.

• Are management objectives met and values conserved?

Which looks at: – what activities were undertaken and what were the outputs; and – what were the outcomes, i.e. the condition of the biodiversity at the site

and whether socio-economic and cultural conditions remained constant or improved.

The Assessment tools Tools for assessing each component of the WCPA framework (as outlined above) are suggested, which if used together will build a picture of the adequacy and appropriateness of management and the extent to which objectives are being achieved. The assessment tools centre on identifying the main values (biodiversity, social, economic and cultural) which the World Heritage Site was set up to protect, ensuring that appropriate objectives based on these values have been set, and then assessing the effectiveness of management in achieving these objectives.

Important values are used because, just as it is impossible to manage every species, hectare or social interaction in a protected area, it is impossible to monitor and assess everything that happens there. World Heritage sites vary in their objectives, management approach, capacity for assessment and monitoring and resources, and so various tools are provided. The assessment tools can be used either to supplement existing assessment activities, to ensure all components of the management cycle are assessed, or it can be used to build a complete assessment system from the start. The following table summarises the assessment tools in this workbook.

Tool Page no.

Context

Tool 1. Identifying Site Values and Management Objectives 22

Tool 2: Identifying Threats 29

Tool 3: Relationships with Stakeholders/Partners 35

Tool 4: Review of National Context 42



11

Tool Page no.

Planning

Tool 5: Assessment of Management Planning 45

Tool 6: Design Assessment 55

Inputs

Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs 63

Processes

Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes 67

Outputs

Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation 85

Tool 10: Assessment of Work/Site Output Indicators 87

Outcomes

Tool 11: Assessing the Outcomes of Management – Ecological Integrity

90

Tool 12: Assessing the Outcomes of Management – Achievement of Principal Objectives

101

Using the workbook

The workbook is designed for use in all natural World Heritage sites, and can be adapted to suit the needs of all protected areas. Many of the tools are very general and should be adapted to suit a site’s own needs; for instance, sections that do not apply should be omitted from an assessment, where similar assessment tools are already being used they can be incorporated and new sections or increased emphasis in areas of particular importance to a site can be added. The workbook provides worksheets for each tool. The worksheets and accompanying text suggest indicators for assessment, but we also encourage sites to develop their own indicators and criteria. The scale and detail of the assessment is likely to vary, depending on financial and human resources. Assessments are most useful if repeated at regular intervals of time. These intervals can vary depending on the management component being assessed. For instance, inputs and outputs could be assessed annually (for example, linked with preparation of annual reports, work plans and budgets), whilst context and outcomes could be assessed at less frequent periods (e.g. 3-5 years, or linked with revisions of the management plan). Repeated assessments allow for site management and site challenges (such as threats) to be tracked over time, help identify improvements needed and determine the effectiveness of adaptive management.



12

If the workbook is being used for the first time it may be advisable for managers to seek technical advice, for instance from members of WCPA before starting an assessment to ensure that the tools are fully understood and adapted to local needs.

Who should be involved in the assessment?

Ideally, all those involved in the management of a World Heritage Site, including representatives of key stakeholder groups, should take part at some stage in an assessment. In practice, the assessment is likely to involve different individuals at different sites. There are however, some general points to consider: Establishing a team to lead the assessment This should include both key protected area personnel (e.g. the site manager) as well as a number of other individuals involved in management issues. For the assessment process to be rigorous, it is essential that site managers build a team of stakeholder representatives to work with them to develop and agree the monitoring and evaluation process. Local people frequently have an intimate knowledge of a protected area but often little say in how it is managed. Their participation in the evaluation process is therefore important both because they may have information and insights not shared by managers and because their views on the site are closely bound up with its overall success. Involving partners and local people in the assessment can also help increase their understanding of the issues managers are trying to deal with and can make them more supportive of an the site. If local people view the World Heritage site with resentment, it is likely to be both failing in some of its objectives and can be under increased threat of degradation. Protected areas commonly have objectives relating to cultural and human issues within and around the area, in addition to its biodiversity values, and the extent to which these are being achieved will also need to be assessed. This will require data collection on socio-economic issues. Pressures, including underlying causes, often affect protected areas from well beyond their boundaries. Engaging a wide range of stakeholders in the evaluation, including for example those sections of government and industry that influence the site, is also important, albeit likely to add time and expense to the evaluation. Self-assessment or using ‘facilitators? It may be beneficial to involve external facilitators or volunteers who will be impartial, bring a freshness of vision and have expertise in assessment procedures. This can take pressure off site managers, for example, when using the worksheet that requires identification of weaknesses in government policy.



13

However, external facilitators or volunteers may have limited knowledge of the area and its issues, and the time they spend on learning can be a real cost. Involving only those directly involved in management, i.e. carrying out a ‘self-assessment’, may cost less but the results of the assessment may lack credibility, especially if there are any controversial issues. Protected area personnel and stakeholders may have limited experience of assessment techniques and, if fully employed, will have little time unless the assessment is written into their work schedules. However, self-assessment has the benefit, particularly if written into a management plan, of being seen as a regular and useful part of on-going assessment and adaptation of management, and ensures staff think about their own performance, rather than relying on

external facilitators to do this. As such, the results of evaluations carried out by staff may be more readily applied at the site, than those carried out externally. If undertaking monitoring and assessment of management is built into the site's management plan the ideal scenario is likely to be that monitoring and assessment is undertaken on a regular basis by staff, with external facilitators being involved in a review of progress say every three to five years.

Stakeholder expectations

The assessment process suggested in this workbook assumes a high level of stakeholder/partner involvement in the assessment. In this context this refers primarily to stakeholders being involved in drafting and commenting on the various worksheets which form the basis of the tools included. However, in many cases stakeholders and partners may also be actively involved in monitoring activities which provide data used in the assessment. There are several issues to bear in mind to help ensure effective stakeholder involvement. Stakeholders/partners should be regularly informed about: • the planning process for monitoring and

assessment and their own role in the process;

• the opportunities to participate in the assessment exercise;

• the issues that they will be asked for their opinion on;

• how their opinions will be used;

• how they will be informed on the progress of the assessment and the final outcomes; and

• how the results will be used (reporting, adaptive management etc).

It is also important to consider how to manage any conflicts which may arise from the discussion of management performance.



14

Developing an assessment process Before the assessment process starts it is useful to develop a plan or terms of reference (TOR) for the process which clearly states:

– the level and objectives of the assessment

– who will be involved (including team leaders, protected area staff and stakeholders/partners) and what their responsibilities will be

– the timeline

– the structure of the final report

– mechanisms for disseminating the findings

– mechanisms for incorporating the results into management

– how the material gathered and used during the assessment, and information on how the assessment was carried out, will be archived.

Choosing the right tools Once the TOR have been developed the tools described in this workbook (and any other useful approaches known to staff or consultants) should be reviewed and those that are appropriate selected for the assessment. As mentioned above, sites may use all the tools or choose those that will supplement existing monitoring and assessment procedures. Whether the tools need adapting, and how this can be done (e.g. are workshops needed), should also be discussed.

Activities involved in an assessment The assessment process and completion of the worksheets is likely to include the following three activities. A similar process is required for all the tools in the workbook and can be carried out in one co-ordinated assessment process. – Data collection: this involves extracting relevant information from key sources

such as monitoring reports, research projects, management plans, biological surveys and sighting records, annual operation plans, visitor records and from interviews with key stakeholders. Many of the assessment tools in the workbook include space for detailing the data that has been used in the assessment process. It is very important that these details are given as the sort of information and data that is available will differ between World Heritage sites, so data strengths and weaknesses should be recorded.



15

– Workshop/s or meetings to compile and verify the worksheets: Workshops can be held at the beginning of the assessment, to help to gather information and compile the draft worksheets. These may also be useful in combining the data collected with the knowledge and experience of managers, key staff members/stakeholders. Workshops held nearer the end of the assessment process are where draft worksheets or reports can be discussed and revised. It may be necessary to simplify or translate the preliminary assessment results into local languages for some stakeholders to ensure their input. Both types of workshop will require participation by protected area personnel and stakeholders.

– Preparation and dissemination of the assessment results: The results can be

presented in a number of ways, including verbal or written reports. In addition to the completed worksheets, there should be a summary describing how the assessment was carried out and key points and issues that arose during discussions. For each recommendation, the agency, department or person responsible for carrying it out should be identified. Consideration should be given to distributing the results to a wide audience; for instance the results could be translated into local languages or sections of the report could be targeted at specific members of the community (e.g. local farmers, fishermen or those involved in providing tourist facilities).

Main steps in an assessment The steps that are likely to be taken to complete an evaluation are summarised below and in the diagram overleaf. 1. Compile relevant data that is already available. 2. Undertake any quick and inexpensive activities needed for carrying out the

assessment – for example, agreeing management standards if these do not exist, or analysing threats.

3. Identify monitoring and data gaps that will require larger and more costly

activities such as the development of long-term monitoring programmes. 4. Use the data obtained in steps 1 and 2 above, and through meetings and

consultations to compile and analyse the worksheets. 5. Adapt and improve management, making new or better interventions, in

response to the assessment results. If the site does not have appropriate monitoring programmes for all the issues covered by the worksheets, the assessment will inevitably be incomplete. However, it will still provide useful information for management. As monitoring systems are improved assessments will be able to draw on better information.



16

Summary of the assessment process

Analysing and acting on the results of the assessment

The information gathered through the evaluation can be used in three ways: 1. By managers to improve their own performance through adaptive management; Adaptive management uses information from past performance to feed back into and improve the way management is conducted in the future. In turn, changes to management practices can be fed back into future evaluations through, for example, revising indicators to reflect new management directions. It is likely that evaluations will indicate a variety of recommendations for adapting management. These may range from small-scale interventions that can be achieved through minor adjustments or additions to current management practices, to the need for larger-scale interventions, where the results of the evaluation can be used to support funding applications or to justify realignment of budget priorities.

Start assessment

Assemble data Identify gaps in data

Undertake any simple steps to fill data gaps

Use data to compile assessment

Complete assessment and analyse results

Carry out management interventions (adaptive

management) in response to assessment

Identify gaps in assessment that need more work to

address

Set up steps to fill

gaps in monitoring



17

2. To fill gaps in knowledge of a World Heritage sites function through the development of monitoring. Monitoring and evaluation provide the link in the management cycle that enables planners and managers to learn from the results and experience of past actions (as revealed by the evaluation process) and to monitor the progress and effectiveness of World Heritage sites and their management. Where assessments have not been carried out previously the information gathered in the first assessment can provide base-line data for building monitoring programmes. Ideally, monitoring strategies should be built into management or operational plans. Where funding for evaluation is secure, longer-term monitoring may be possible as part of the evaluation process, allowing for some indicators to be measured over time. This may be particularly useful where evaluations have highlighted gaps in knowledge about, for example, biodiversity health (e.g. size, condition and landscape context), local people’s needs, resource use and sustainability and tourism effects. 3. For reporting purposes Reporting on the state of natural World Heritage sites is a key task for managers. Fulfilling reporting requirements is much simpler if reliable and detailed monitoring and evaluation results for a site are at hand. Keeping a record of the assessment process and results

A lot of information on the World Heritage site will be collected as part of the process of the assessment – these records as well as the results of the assessment and notes on how the process was conducted should be archived at the site. Data managements and library material on the site are valuable resources for managers and staff, particularly when there are staff changes.

A note on comparison and

scoring

The tools in this workbook have been designed to track progress over time in one site, rather than as a comparison between sites. There is therefore no overall score for effectiveness, although some tools do use rating schemes as an aid to evaluate management.

Section 2 The Assessment Tools


18

Section 2

The Assessment Tools The rest of this workbook contains 12 assessment tools which can be used to build a picture of management effectiveness of the World Heritage site. The tools are grouped under three headings: 1. How appropriate is the site’s design?

Tool 1: Identifying Site Values and Management Objectives (Context assessment) Tool 2: Identifying Threats (Context assessment) Tool 3: Relationships with Stakeholders/Partners (Context assessment) Tool 4: Review of National Context (Context assessment) Tool 5: Assessment of Management Planning (Planning assessment) Tool 6: Design Assessment (Planning assessment)

2. How appropriate are the management systems and processes?

Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs (Inputs assessment) Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes (Process assessment)

3. Are management objectives met and values conserved?

Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation (Output assessment) Tool 10: Work/Site Output Indicators (Output assessment) Tool 11: Assessing the Outcomes of Management – Ecological Integrity Tool 12: Assessing the Outcomes of Management – Achievement of Principal Objectives

It should be noted that: • The assessment tools are generic, and thus can be adapted to the local

situation. • The assessment tools should be chosen to complement current monitoring

and assessment systems, the workbook should not replicate any systems currently in place – the intention is to aid management, not add to it where existing systems are meeting current assessment needs.

• Completing each assessment tool does not have to be a separate exercise,

although each tool is given separately the process for completing the assessments detailed above (i.e. workshops) can be carried out simultaneously.

Section 2 The Assessment Tools


19

• Qualitative information, include as much extra descriptive information as possible. There are comments columns on most of the worksheets. This enables new staff and people conducting future assessments to understand how the assessment was done and what the assessment information was based on.

• Assessors information, it is important to provide details of who

participated in the assessment and when it was done; both in case of any follow up to the assessment and for future reference. A suggested format for this type of information is provided below.

SITE NAME:

Assessment Details Comments

Dates of previous assessments

Date this assessment commenced

Date completed

How was the assessment completed? e.g. through workshops, external consultants etc.

Name of principal assessor

Others involved

Other Comments

Section 2 How appropriate is the site’s design?


20

How appropriate is the site’s design?

(Tools 1-6)

Context and planning assessment The context assessment helps identify site values and threats and the context within which management occurs. It aims to answer the following questions:

• What are the values that make the site significant and provide a focus for management (and thus assessment of management effectiveness)? And: what are the principal management objectives for the site and how do these relate to site values? Aspects to be addressed include:

– Biodiversity values (for Natural World Heritage sites this will usually include values specified in the nomination document);

– Other natural values (i.e. watershed protection, and other ecological values) provided by the site, and

– Cultural, social and economic values.

• What are the threats facing the site and their impacts?

• Who are the stakeholders and what is their relationship with the site? And: what are their levels of involvement and opportunities to influence management?

• What is the broader policy context of the site?

The ‘context’ assessment contributes to the assessment of management effectiveness through providing information on:

• Values and management objectives, which can be used as a focus for many of

the tools in the workbook. • Threats their sources and impacts can help focus management actions. It can

also help identify threats that a manager can address and those beyond his/her control.

• Stakeholders/partners and their level of engagement, allowing managers to assess their contributions (e.g. activities of researchers, involvement of local communities and support from local organisations) and whether more effective participation or new partnerships are needed.

• Policies, legislation and other aspects of national context, which contribute to a greater understanding of how these affect management at site-level.

Section 2 How appropriate is the site’s design?


21

The planning assessment aims to answer the following questions: • Is the legal status and tenure of the site clear?

• Does the design of site allow it to function effectively? This should consider how site design aspects such as size and shape, connectivity, boundaries, inclusion of key habitats and adjacent land uses affect ecological integrity, community well-being and site management.

• Does the site have clear management planning? Including looking at questions such as: is there an up-to-date management plan or work plan and does it help guide the management of the site?; does the management plan set priorities based on the management objectives?

The planning assessment contributes to the assessment of management effectiveness through providing information on: • Legal status and design of sites, which can help identify management

constraints (and strengths). While managers have limited capacity to change the design of the site or the surrounding/adjacent land or sea use, they can adjust management for the design limitations.

• Existence of plans, and how up-to-date and appropriate they are, showing

whether the planning instruments are adequate to guide management of the site. The process of planning - i.e. how it was carried out (e.g. was there effective participation of stakeholders?) can be assessed later under Process Assessment.

Section 2 Tool 1: Identifying Site Values and Management Objectives


22

Tool 1: Identifying Site Values and

Management Objectives What are the important values of the site? The first step in implementing an assessment of management effectiveness is to document the site’s values (refer to Worksheet 1a for Tool 1). These values then guide the type of management required to maintain site values, i.e. the management objectives (refer to Worksheet 1b for Tool 1). Values are defined here as the natural, cultural or socio-economic attributes of the site. They include those values which led to World Heritage nomination. Statements of Outstanding Universal Value or Statements of Significance prepared for the property are a good place to start in listing these values. For sites important for biodiversity conservation these values may include: • Ecological Systems: e.g. assemblages of communities

that occur together in a landscape/seascape which are linked by environmental processes.

• Ecological Communities: e.g. globally threatened vegetation associations.

• Species: e.g. threatened, endangered or of special concern; species’ assemblages with similar conservation needs and/or globally significant aggregations of species.

In addition, site values should reflect any cultural, economic or social values that are locally, nationally, or globally important to stakeholders. These values may include, for example: • Significance of the area for water catchment

protection which in turn affects the water quality for surrounding communities.

• Economic importance of the site for local communities from tourism.

• The spiritual/cultural importance of the area.

Recommended process to

identify values and objectives

Review information sources • Site nomination report • Statements of

Outstanding Universal Value or Significance

• Other reports • Management and/or

other planning documents

• Interviews

Develop a list of the site’s major values

List key management objectives and relate these

to values where appropriate

Identify key values and their relationship to World

Heritage status



23

Identifying major values: some examples

There are many specific values present in World Heritage sites. It is not usually possible to manage for each of these values separately and there is a need to group these into major values that can help focus management efforts. Some examples of how this grouping can be conducted are given below. Biodiversity values

Values relating to interlinked ecological systems can often be the basis for a major value. • Fens, lakes, streams, swamp heaths and water quality could be captured within a

single value that addresses the integrity of acidic freshwater systems – on the assumption that the biodiversity within these various systems will be protected if the acidic freshwater systems as a whole are conserved.

• A major value could be represented through an individual species that disperses or travels through a range of ecological ecosystems. For instance, a salamander species that moves from ponds for feeding to uplands for breeding and nesting will require protection and maintenance of a range of ecosystems to ensure its survival.

• A major value could also be identified for a population of a species at the regional level that is dependent on a network of individual sites. One major value might be migratory birds, reflecting a site’s importance either as a feeding point along a migratory route or as an over-wintering site.

• Major values can also be recognised in an individual species or ecological community that has special conservation or management requirements because it is rare or endangered. Thus in Bwindi Impenetrable Forest in Uganda, the the mountain gorilla, a critically endangered subspecies, is a major value for the park.

Cultural, social and economic values It is preferable if cultural and social values are determined in co-operatively with members of relevant local and Indigenous communities.

• Cultural values will vary considerably depending on the historical, religious, etc attributes of the site.

• Social values are often related to access, and a range of ‘well-being’ issues such as subsistence, health (i.e. medicinal plants) or recreation.

• Educational values will be necessary if the site is aiming to increase local and national understanding of its values and to promote research.

• Economic values can be linked to tourism activities and the extent to which the site contributes to the local, regional and national economy.



24

Documenting principal management objectives

Many sites will already have clear management objectives stated in their management plans or other policy documents and legislation governing management of the site. Objectives are commonly organised in a hierarchical manner in management plans moving from broad goals down to very specific actions. The aim here is not to list every objective of park management but to list the principal management objectives that represent the most important things that site managers wish to achieve. Not all management objectives will relate to specific site values but the worksheet provides for listing of these linkages where they exist. In some cases, sites may lack a management plan or the objectives in the plan may be incomplete or unclear. This workbook is not a tool for developing management objectives and should not be used to replace the planning process. If management objectives are missing, unclear or inadequate, this indicates that there is a need to develop or improve the management plan for the site. For example in Sangay National Park in Ecuador, the initial assessment of management that was undertaken using this workbook identified the need for revision of the management plan to ensure that the objectives better reflected the sites values and management challenges. Completing the worksheets

There are two worksheets for identifying site values and documenting management objectives. Worksheet 1a: Identifying major site values

The first worksheet focuses on identifying the major site values (column 1). This maybe narrowed down from a longer and more detailed list. Major site values will include the World Heritage values for the site which can be obtained from the nomination document or from statements of Outstanding Universal Value. Additional site values may be found in, for example, site management plans, scientific literature, fauna and flora surveys, vegetation mapping, discussions with local communities or other reports and interviews. The second column is a check box used to identify those that are World Heritage values and the third column lists the information sources used to determine the values, including documentation and/or workshops held to discuss site values. Worksheet 1b: Documenting management objectives and their relationship to

site values

The management objectives should be taken from the management plan or other relevant documentation. Once the principal objectives have been listed, the relationship (if any) to the major values of the site are listed in the second column of the worksheet.



25

Once the draft site values and management objectives worksheets have been compiled from existing information, they should be reviewed and validated with experts and stakeholders. Based on comments and feedback, the worksheet can be refined to determine the final list of site values and management objectives. Tool 1 of the workbook provides the basis for evaluating management effectiveness; from these site values and management objectives a picture of the overall management effectiveness of the site will be developed using the various tools presented in this workbook. Perhaps most importantly, the status of these values and the achievement of objectives can be assessed using the tools suggested in the section on outcome monitoring (tools 11 and 12).

Section 2 Tool 1: Identifying Site values and management objectives


26

Worksheet 1a for Tool 1: Identifying major site values (Refer to page 22-25 for guidance)

List the major site values Is this a World

Heritage value? Information sources used for determining the values

Biodiversity

Values

Other

Natural

Values

Cultural

Values

Economic

Values



27

List the major site values Is this a World

Heritage value? Information sources used for determining the values

Educational

Values

Other

Social

Values



28

Worksheet 1b for Tool 1: Documenting management objectives and their relationship to

site values (Refer to page 22-25 for guidance)

List Principal Management Objectives (from park

management plan or other source documents)

Major values that are related to this objective (there may be

more than one value related to a principal management objective)

Section 2 Tool 2: Identifying Threats


29

Tool 2: Identifying Threats

Reducing and eliminating threats is an important aspect of effective management of protected areas, since the long-term abatement of threats to World Heritage site values is a critical requirement. There are often many threats and they typically have a complex set of causes and consequences. This complexity needs to be understood when assessing the management effectiveness of a World Heritage site. The threats should be identified at an early stage of management planning, so that monitoring programmes can be developed with appropriate indicators and managers can be guided towards priority management activities. For the worksheet, the threats are divided into sources and impacts. Sources of threats are the activities that cause the destruction/degradation or other negative impacts on the site. Each threat has at least one, and may have several, sources. For example, conversion of surrounding forests to farming (a source) can cause both sedimentation of a river and loss of connectivity in a forest (both impacts). Impacts of a threat directly affect the integrity of a site and reduce its viability. They include, for example, sedimentation to a river, loss of connectivity in a forest, decrease in the population of a threatened species. Separation of threats into their sources and impacts is important for several reasons: 1. It allows for an analysis of the effects that threats have on the integrity of

the site and its management objectives. For example, “deforestation” as a threat to a site may result from a number of sources (forestry activities and agricultural encroachment) and have a number of ecological impacts (such as loss of habitat and habitat structure, reduction in top predators, and sedimentation) that result from it and that must be considered carefully when assessing management effectiveness.

2. It allows managers to develop better strategies for threat abatement by

tackling the actual sources. If the sources cannot be eliminated, it may be possible to develop management interventions that will help reduce their impacts.

3. Because sources can create more than one impact, management activities can

be prioritised according to the sources responsible for the gravest and most numerous impacts or problems at the site.



30

Threats can also be divided into current threats and potential threats. Potential threats could happen, but are not currently taking place. It is often possible to predict the likelihood of such threats affecting World Heritage values, and so their identification is a valuable second component to this worksheet. A list of potential threats can be drawn up by considering the natural, social, political, cultural, legal and demographic trends at the site that might lead to a negative impact. The likelihood of this occurring should be weighed against the need for management action, and only those that are most likely to happen and that will have a significant impact should be listed: listing all possible threats would risk diversion of management efforts away from the highest priority current and potential threats. Listing potential threats is particularly important when developing contingency plans (i.e. plans for emergency actions to be taken in the event of sudden and serious impacts such as an oil spill). Completing the worksheet

A worksheet to help organise and report changes in level of threat is provided below. Different worksheets can be completed to reflect the groupings of values identified in tool 1a (biodiversity values, other natural values and cultural, economic, educational and other social values). For each group of values the first task is to identify the most important threats which are effecting or are likely to affect the group of values. As mentioned above, only those threats that cause particular concern and are likely to have a major impact on the site value and achievement of the objective should be listed. For each threat, the sources (which can be identified as either current or potential) should then be identified. A review of the status of the identified threat and of the actions that can be taken to reduce risk from the sources of threat is then undertaken. The worksheet covers four characteristics of a threat that together summarise its impacts and the management actions that can be taken. 1. Extent - the extent to which the value is being or is likely to be impacted by

the threat. For biological values this may be measured as the area of the site containing the value that is being affected. For social values, it may be the number of community groups or community members that are impacted.

2. Severity - the severity of destruction caused by the threat. For example,

within the overall area, will the threat completely destroy the habitat(s) or will it cause only minor changes? For cultural values, will the threat destroy species or places of cultural significance or does it threaten local livelihoods.



31

3. Action – what actions are planned or have taken place to manage the threat. These actions can either be directed at eliminating or at managing the impacts of the threat.

4. Urgency of action – the immediacy of the threat; for example, is the impact

of the threat likely to become irreversible if it is not addressed soon?

This tool was inspired by TNC’s Five-S Framework for Site Conservation and Margoluis, Richard and Nick Salafsky (2001); Is our project succeeding: A Guide to Threat Reduction Assessment for Conservation, Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC. The full Five-S Framework can be downloaded from: nature.org/summit/files/five_s_eng.pdf. Is our project succeeding can be found at: www.fosonline.org/images/Documents/tra.pdf.



32

Worksheet for Tool 2: Identifying Threats

(Refer to page 29-31 for guidance)

Threats to Biodiversity Values (Refer to values identified in Tool 1a)

List

Threats

Is it a

Curre

nt or

Potentia

l

Thre

at?

Identify major sources of

threat

Impact of threat Management response

Extent Severity Action Urgency of

action

Source(s)

Source(s)

Source(s)

Source(s)



33

Threats to Other Natural Values (Refer to values identified in Tool 1a)

List

Threats

Is it a

Curre

nt or

Potentia

l

Thre

at?


threat



action

Source(s)

Source(s)

Source(s)

Source(s)



34

Threats to Cultural, Economic, Educational and Other Social Values (Refer to values identified in Tool 1a)

List

Threats

Is it a

Curre

nt or

Potentia

l

Thre

at?


threat



action

Source(s)

Source(s)

Source(s)

Source(s)

Section 2 Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholders/Partners


35

Tool 3: Relationships with

Stakeholders/Partners Effective management usually includes engagement with stakeholders that influence (both positively and negatively) the site’s values and/or are dependent on the site’s resources. Therefore as part of the context assessment the following information should be understood about the stakeholders: • All stakeholders/partners should be identified • Their relationship to the site and its values and resources • Their level of engagement and participation Identification of stakeholder groups should take account of the nature of people/groups that interact with the site, any formal or informal community organisations, and private and government sectors. Examples are local or indigenous groups living on or near the site, tourist industry, researchers, government agencies, local government authorities and so on. The participation of stakeholders in management and assessment implies a closer and more participatory relationship than relying merely on consulting with partners. Completing the worksheet

This worksheet can be completed for individual or groups of site values (i.e. a particular species or all biodiversity values). The first step is to identify all the important stakeholders and partners relating to the major value(s). This list should aim to include stakeholders/partners that either: • have an interest/connection with the World Heritage site particularly relating

to the site’s major values • have any interaction with the site management • have a current or potential impact on the management of the site • are affected by the site’s management The list may include, for example: the local population (i.e. indigenous and non-indigenous communities inside and outside the World Heritage site), municipal and state government, armed forces, religious organisations, development banks, non-governmental organisations, research organisations, development agencies, industry (e.g. logging, mining, large-scale agriculture or fishing) and so on.



36

It is important to consider both active (i.e. those that are participating with the site managers) and inactive (i.e. those not participating) stakeholders; the latter are sometimes those with powerful economic interests (i.e. large-scale resource users such as logging companies and fishing fleets) or those who resent the site being protected and do not wish to work with site managers. From this list the most important stakeholders/partners (the number will depend on the capacity of the site’s management to engage with stakeholders and partners, but is likely to be between five and ten stakeholders) should be selected who are or should be the focus of management action at the site.

The worksheet requires the identification of the main ways that each stakeholder group interacts with the site (positive and negative), and their relationship with site management. If this is not known already, it may be necessary to develop a project/workshop to identify and review stakeholder involvement at the site. The various columns in the worksheet are described in more detail below: • Main issues associated with this stakeholder: This column lists the main issues

of concern to either the stakeholder group or the site managers that relate to interactions between the site and the group.

• Economic dependency: Looks at how, and to what degree, the stakeholders are

dependent on the site value(s) for their economic well-being? • Impacts – Negative impacts by stakeholders: What is the nature and extent of

the direct physical impacts of the particular stakeholder/partners that negatively affect the site value(s)? For example, do stakeholders still extract resources from the site such as timber?

• Impacts – Negative impacts on stakeholders: What are the negative impacts of the World Heritage site on the stakeholders? For example, were the communities displaced when the site was declared; are they excluded from traditional hunting grounds?

• Impacts – Positive impacts by stakeholders: What is the nature and extent of

the direct physical impacts of the particular stakeholder/partner that positively contribute to the health and quality of the site value(s)? For example, do local tourism guides alert rangers to problems? Does surrounding land use provide connectivity for the site?

• Impacts – Positive impacts on stakeholders: What are the direct positive benefits of the site to stakeholders? For example does the site provide employment opportunities for local people? Does a forested area provide catchment protection and improved water quality for local people? Do tourism ventures benefit from the unique site values?



37

• Willingness/capacity to engage by stakeholders: What is the stakeholder’s/partner’s receptivity to participating in management of the site value(s)? Under what terms or conditions?

• Willingness/capacity to engage by site management. What is site management’s relationship with the stakeholder? What is the capacity (including resources) for engaging? For example, it may be difficult to engage a large number of stakeholder groups when there are limited staff working at the site.

• Political/Social influence: What is the stakeholder’s/partner’s relative political

or cultural leverage or influence in the site value(s)? • Organisation of stakeholders: How and to what degree is the stakeholder

group organised, such that their engagement in management may be efficient and effective?

The final columns are an assessment of the identified stakeholder’s engagement in the site, and look at: • What opportunities do stakeholders/partners have to contribute to

management? Describe the nature and extent to which stakeholders/partners contribute to decision-making in relation to this particular site value(s). Are there formal or informal management agreements in place?

• What is the level of engagement of the stakeholder/partner? Describe the

actual engagement of the stakeholder/partner in the management of the specific value(s). Are stakeholders regularly consulted regarding management of this value?

The worksheet thus assesses the stakeholders, their interests and their level of engagement for each site value, which can be summarised as an overall rating of very good, good, fair, or poor on the following basis: • Very good – most aspects of the relationship are positive • Good – more than 50 per cent positive • Fair – fewer than 50 per cent positive • Poor – most aspects of the relationship are negative

This rating exercise can be carried out initially by managers, but should be reviewed by the stakeholders concerned at a site level workshop of stakeholders and partners involved in the management of the site. This rating can then be summarised in the Stakeholder Engagement Summary Table (Tool 3b). It is very important to write detailed comments and justification for ratings and other conclusions made in the assessment. A rating without explanation will be meaningless to stakeholders and other staff not involved in the assessment.



38

Worksheet 3a for Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholders/Partners

Major Values: ________________________________________________________ (Complete a separate form for each set of major values (e.g. biodiversity, economic etc), or conduct one assessment for a particularly important site value – i.e. a significant endangered species) (Refer to page 35-37 for guidance)

Factor Stakeholder 1 Stakeholder 2 Stakeholder 3 Stakeholder 4 Stakeholder 5 Comments

Name of Stakeholder

Und

ers

tand

ing

Sta

keholders

Main issues associated with this stakeholder

Economic dependency

List negative impacts of stakeholders on site

List negative impacts of site management on stakeholders

List positive impacts of stakeholders on site

List positive impacts of site management on stakeholders



39


Willingness/capacity of stakeholders to engage with site management

Willingness/capacity of site management to engage with stakeholders

Political/Social influence

Organisation of stakeholders

Ass

ess

ment

of

Sta

keholder

Eng

age

men

t What opportunities do stakeholders have to contribute to management?

What is the level of engagement of the stakeholder?



40


Sum

mary

Describe the overall

adequacy of

stakeholder

engagement

Rating

Rate the overall

adequacy of

stakeholder

engagement, as either

very good; good; fair

or poor



41

Worksheet 3b for Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholders/Partners - Summary Table (Refer to page 37 for Guidance)

Major Values Stakeholder

1

Stakeholder

2

Stakeholder

3

Stakeholder

4

Stakeholder

5

Overall Stakeholder

Engagement for major

values

Name of

stakeholder

Value 1

Value 2

Value 3

Value 4

Value 5

Value 6

Value 7

Value 8

Value 9

Value 10

Overall Engagement

of the Stakeholder

Section 2 Tool 4: Review of National Context


42

Tool 4: Review of National Context It is important to understand how national and international policies, legislation and government actions affect the World Heritage site. For example, it is useful to know whether the government is supportive of the site and the degree to which legislation is helping to maintain World Heritage values. It is equally important to know whether policies are adequate and whether they are being followed through in practice. These are often difficult questions for site managers to answer as they may have political connotations but they are nonetheless important. The following worksheet provides a means of capturing this information. Completing the worksheet

This part of the assessment involves reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of five pre-determined indicators, and providing recommendations for actions to be taken, and comments on past actions. Using the questions given in the box below will help to ensure that all the relevant issues are considered. Although the answers will be qualitative, they should provide valuable background information about the conditions in which managers operate. Individual World Heritage sites may want to add additional indicators to suit local conditions.

Indicators Questions to guide the assessment

World Heritage Site and protected area legislation

• How adequate is the legislation, i.e. does it provide a strong enough framework to preserve the values of the site?

• To what extent is the legislation used/useful? • Is the legislation effective: i.e. has enforcement of the

legislation helped to preserve World Heritage values? • It is important to outline the impacts of the legislation on site

values/management objectives

Conservation within broader government policy

• How high does conservation rank relative to other government policies – e.g. is there a dedicated ministry?

• Does other government policy relevant to this site contradict or undermine conservation policy?

• Is there a conscious attempt to integrate conservation within other areas of government policy?

• Are policies implemented i.e. has the necessary legislation been enacted?

International conservation conventions and treaties

• What international conservation conventions and treaties relevant to the management of this site has the government signed up to and how adequately have these been implemented – e.g. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species),

Section 2 Tool 4: Review of National Context


43

Indicators Questions to guide the assessment

Ramsar (Convention on Wetlands), Convention on Desertification etc?

• Are these conventions and treaties reflected in national law? • It is important to outline the impacts of the treaties and

conventions on site values/management objectives rather than just listing them by name.

Government support for the World Heritage site

• How willing is government to fund the World Heritage site? • Does government have the capacity to match its willingness –

e.g. money, staff, training, equipment etc?

National Protected Area Agency and the World Heritage site

• What is the relationship between site level and agency level staff – e.g. what proportion of the agency’s budget goes to field operations, how many times a year do central agency staff visit the World Heritage site?

Section 2 Tool 5: Assessment of Management Planning


44

Worksheet for Tool 4: Review of National Context (Refer to page 42-43 for guidance)

Criteria Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations/Comments

World Heritage Site and protected area legislation

Conservation within broader government policy

International conservation conventions and treaties

Government support for the World Heritage site

National Protected Area Agency and the World Heritage site

Section 2

Tool 5: Assessment of Management Planning


45

Tool 5: Assessment of Management

Planning This tool helps assess the main decision making document used by the site. This is usually the management plan, but in the absence of this any documents (e.g. annual work plan) that are used to guide management planning should be used. Completing Worksheets

5a: Management planning information sheet

As a first step, it is useful to list the existing and proposed planning documents, using worksheet 5a for the World Heritage site (e.g. Management Plan, Zoning plan, specific plans for e.g. fire, tourism etc). This list should also give basic information such as: • date of preparation, date of recent revisions, or, if still in draft, the date

when the plan is expected to be operational • level of approval of the plan, from draft plans with no formal approval to fully

approved legal documents • comments on the adequacy and currency of the document and if it is

integrated with other planning documents used by the site.

5b: Adequacy of Primary Planning Document

The second step is to carry out an assessment of the primary decision making document. It is suggested that this should be based on four principles of effective management planning: 1. The plan should be a sound decision-making framework (i.e. it should provide a

clear sense of the desired future for the area based on of the major site values; a set of strategies and actions for achieving this future and clear guidance that can assist managers in dealing with opportunities and eventualities that arise during the life of the plan; it should provide a basis for monitoring of plan implementation and progress towards the desired future and adjustment of planning strategies and actions as required).

2. The plan should place the management of the area into the relevant

environmental, social and economic planning context. Where possible, planning decisions should be integrated into this broader planning framework.

3. The content of the plan should be formulated within an adequate and current

information base and should place management issues within a broader context. In relation to the desired future for the area; the needs and interests of any local and indigenous communities and other stakeholders should have been considered within the plan.

Section 2

Tool 5: Assessment of Management Planning


46

4. The plan should provide a programmed and prioritised set of actions for its

implementation. The questions to be used for assessing the extent to which the plan meets these principles are listed in the first column of the worksheet. A four-point rating system (very good, good, fair or poor) and criteria for each rating, provided in the second column, is suggested. These criteria can be amended to meet site circumstances, and may be particularly necessary where a plan other than the management plan is being assessed. The third column of the worksheet is for giving an explanation of the ranking and for any other comments. The fourth column is for recording the management actions (next steps) that are needed, given the results (rankings) of each question.



47

Worksheet 5a for Tool 5: Management Planning Information Sheet


Name of plan

Level of

approval of

the plan

(L,G,A, S/A,D)*

Year of

preparation,

likely

completion or

most recent

review

Year

specified

for next

review of

plan

Comments

(comments should concentrate on the adequacy, currency, and integration of the plan with other planning instruments)

* - Key

L = plan has force of law (usually has been approved by parliament or is a legal instrument)

G = plan has been approved at government level but is not a legal instrument

A = plan has been approved at Head of Agency level

S/A = plan has been approved at a senior level within the Agency

D = plan is a draft and has not been formally approved



48

Worksheet 5b for Tool 5: Adequacy of Primary Planning Document


Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps

Decision making framework

1. Does the plan establish a clear understanding of the desired future for the site? (i.e. describes the desired outcomes of management in terms that provides a guide to management and decision making by site managers)

Desired future is explicitly articulated as a decision making reference point

VG

Desired future is reasonably articulated

G

Desired future is not clearly articulated but is implied or can be inferred from plan objectives

F

Plan focuses more on present issues and actions and doesn’t indicate a desired future for the site

P

2. Does the plan express the desired future for the site so that it can assist management of new issues and opportunities that arise during the life of the plan?

Desired future is expressed in a way that provides clear guidance for addressing new issues and opportunities

VG

Desired future is expressed in a way that gives some guidance for addressing new issues and opportunities

G

Desired future is not clearly articulated and provides only limited guidance for addressing new threats and opportunities

F

The plan focuses more on present issues and actions and doesn’t indicate any desired future for the site

P



49


3. Does the plan provide for a process of monitoring, review and adjustment during the life of the plan?

Plan provides a clear, explicit and appropriate process for monitoring, review and adjustment

VG

Provisions for monitoring, review and adjustment of the plan are present but are incomplete, unclear or inappropriate in some minor respects

G

Need for monitoring, review and adjustment is recognised but is not dealt with in sufficient detail

F

Plan does not address the need for monitoring, review and adjustment

P

Planning context

4. Does the plan provide an adequate and appropriate policy environment for management of the World Heritage site?

Policy requirements for the site are identified and adequate and appropriate policies are established with clear linkages to the desired future for the site

VG

Policy requirements for the site are identified and policies are largely adequate and appropriate although there are gaps

G

Policies in the plan are inadequate or incomplete in many respects

F

Plan either doesn’t establish policies for the area or the policies are inadequate or inappropriate in major respects

P



50


5. Is the plan integrated/linked to other significant national/regional/sectoral plans that influence management of the World Heritage site?

Relevant national, regional and sectoral plans that affect the site are identified and specific mechanisms are included to provide for integration or linkage now and in the future

VG

Relevant national, regional and sectoral plans that affect the site are identified, their influence on the site is taken into account but there is little attempt at integration

G

Some relevant national, regional and sectoral plans are identified but there is no attempt at integration

F

No account is taken of other plans affecting the site

P

Plan Content

6. Is the plan based on an adequate and relevant information base?

The information base for the plan is up to date and adequate in scope and depth and is matched to the major decisions, policies and issues addressed in the plan

VG

The information base is adequate in scope and depth but maybe a little out dated and/or contain irrelevant information (i.e. a broad compilation of data rather than matching information to the decisions, policies and issues addressed in the plan)

G

The information base is out of date and/or has inadequacies in scope or depth so that some issues, decisions or policies cannot be placed into context

F



51


Very little information relevant to plan decisions is presented

P

7. Have the values for the site been identified in the plan and linked to the management objectives and desired outcomes for the site?

The site values have been clearly identified and linked to well defined management objectives and desired outcomes for the site.

VG

The site values have been reasonably identified and linked to management objectives and desired outcomes for the site.

G

The site values have not been clearly identified or linked to management objectives and desired outcomes for the site.

F

The site values have not been identified.

P

8. Does the plan address the primary issues facing management of the World Heritage Area within the context of the desired future of the site?

Plan identifies primary issues for the site and deals with them within the context of the desired future for the site (i.e. plan is outcome rather than issues driven)

VG Note: This assessment should refer to the issues (and subsequent objectives) developed in tool 1.

Plan identifies primary issues for the site but tends to deal with them in isolation or out of context of the desired future for the site

G

Some significant issues for the site are not addressed in the plan or the issues are not adequately addressed

F

Many significant issues are not addressed or are inadequately dealt with in the plan

P



52


9. Are the objectives and actions specified in the plan represented as adequate and appropriate response to the issues?

Objectives and actions are adequate and appropriate for all issues

VG

Objectives and actions are adequate and appropriate for most issues

G

Objectives and actions are frequently inadequate or inappropriate

F

Objectives and actions in the plan do not represent an adequate or appropriate response to the primary issues

P

10. “Were local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the management of the WHS?

Local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS were meaningfully and fully involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS

VG

Local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS were fairly meaningfully and partly involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS

G

Local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS were only minimally involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS

F

Local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS were not involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS

P



53


11. Does the plan take account of the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities living in or around the World Heritage site?

Plan identifies the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities and has taken these into account in decision making

VG

Plan identifies the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities but it is not apparent that these have been into account in decision making

G

There is limited attention given to the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities and little account taken of these in decision making

F

No apparent attention has been given to the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities

P

12. Does the plan take account of the needs and interests of other stakeholders involved in the World Heritage site?

Plan identifies the needs and interests of other stakeholders and has taken these into account in decision making

VG

Plan identifies the needs and interests of other stakeholders but it is not apparent that these have been into account in decision making

G

There is limited attention given to the needs and interests of other stakeholders and little account taken of these in decision making

F

No apparent attention has been given to the needs and interests of other stakeholders

P



54


13. Does the plan provide adequate direction on management actions that should be undertaken in the World Heritage site?

Management actions specified in the plan can be clearly understood and provide a useful basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

VG

Management actions specified in the plan can generally be clearly understood and provide an adequate basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

G

Management actions are sometimes unclear or lacking in specificity making it difficult to use the plan as a basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

F

Management actions are unclear or lacking in specificity making it very difficult to use the plan as a basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

P

14. Does the plan identify the priorities amongst strategies and actions in a way that facilitates work programming and allocation of resources?

Clear priorities are indicated within the plan in a way that supports work programming and allocation of resources

VG

Priorities are generally indicated making their use for work programming and resource allocation adequate most of the time

G

Priorities are not clearly indicated but may be inferred for work programming and resource allocation

F

There is no indication of priorities in the plan so that the plan cannot be used for work programming and resource allocation

P

Section 2 Tool 6: Design Assessment


55

Tool 6: Design Assessment Assessing the design of a World Heritage site requires finding out how the decisions made about its size, location and boundaries affect its management. In many cases, these decisions will have been influenced by factors such as the suitability and availability of the land or sea area and various social, political and economic constraints. It is thus important to understand how the design affects the effective management of the site, as many of the factors involved may be beyond the control of the manager. Information from this assessment can be used to: • identify ways in which management effectiveness could be improved through

changes to design aspects such as size or boundary location • identify ways in which changes to management can resolve problems created by

poor design, where the site cannot be changed determine whether agreements with neighbours could enhance transboundary management so that biodiversity conservation and community well-being issues are effectively addressed.

Completing the worksheet

The worksheet can be used to examine site design from three angles: 1. Ecological integrity 2. Community well-being 3. Management factors (i.e. ease of management of the site). A separate worksheet is provided for each of these, and is completed using qualitative information. The following guidance notes should be used to make sure that all relevant issues are considered. Each worksheet uses the site’s major values as the basis of the assessment (see Tool 1a). 1. Ecological integrity This assessment is based on four major design elements: inclusion of key habitats, size, external interactions and connectivity. Key habitats: Species persistence may be affected by the failure to include key resource areas required by the species within the World Heritage site. Examples include part of a species seasonal range, or refuge areas used during periods of environmental extremes (e.g. droughts, floods). Size: Larger sites are more likely to retain viable populations of many species because they can sustain essential ecological processes. They also provide buffering from edge effects such as weed invasion or pesticide spray.



56

Small sites in areas of extensive natural vegetation, however, are effectively part of a much larger site, as long as the vegetation outside has not been made unsuitable as habitat. Some small World Heritage sites established for particular species (e.g. localised populations of rare plants) can remain effective for those species if surrounding land use is compatible. External interactions: The extent to which the World Heritage site interacts with or is influenced by external factors is a function of three related and interacting features of site design; boundaries, shape and adjacent land management. The more compact a World Heritage site is, the better its interior is buffered from negative edge effects such as pesticide spray, and weed and feral animal invasion. Sites with long boundaries relative to their areas will be more vulnerable to such outside effects. The influence of shape will be more significant in the case of small sites. Land use immediately adjacent to World Heritage sites can have important effects on some key species, and habitats depending on the size, shape and boundary location of the site. For example, cultivation of crops adjacent to a World Heritage site may lead to killing of native animals that leave the site to feed on crops, or inputs of nutrients and pesticides. If the site is small or has a high boundary to area ratio, the overall viability of the species/habitats in the site may be threatened by these losses.

Connectivity: Connectivity refers both to continuous connections or “corridors” between patches of native vegetation and to the general “permeability” of the landscape/seascape to allow for movement between patches, if these are not too far apart and the intervening landscape is not too hostile. Connectivity of an area therefore differs for different species, depending on their mobility and behaviour and the nature of the corridors or ‘stepping-stones’ available. Connectivity determines the extent to which a site is isolated. In the long-term, connectivity will affect the ability of communities of species to adjust to climate change.

2. Community well-being The first step is to list the issues that will form the basis of the assessment; these can be derived from the cultural, economic, educational and other social values listed in the worksheet for Tool 1 and through discussions with stakeholders. This can include impacts/benefits on the community as a whole or on certain sectors within the community. Issues relevant to community well-being may include: • Cultural integrity (are cultural institutions and practices, and access to

important cultural and religious sites able to be maintained?)



57

• Livelihood (is provision made for access to, and protection of, resources of economic importance; does the site provide ecological services to the community; are livelihoods threatened by the aspects of the design of the World Heritage site (e.g. crop damage by animals moving out of the site)?

The assessment of design in relation to community well-being is based on four major elements: Key areas, size, external interactions and legal status and tenure, as explained here. Key areas: Key resource areas required by local communities may lie within the site which may result in conflict if access to them is not adequate or legal. The resources may be cultural, religious or economic (e.g. species used for food, medicinal plants; breeding areas of species of cultural or economic importance to the community). Size: The size of the World Heritage site can affect its potential to deliver community benefits through the provision of ecological services such as water supplies, erosion control, climate amelioration, and air quality. Where exploitation of resources by local communities is permitted, the size of the World Heritage site will affect the amount that can be sustainably harvested. External interactions: A World Heritage site can affect communities if, for example, new social institutions and governance arrangements required for its management undermine traditional community institutions or if an influx of foreign visitors affects social and economic conditions. The design of the site will affect the extent and significance of such interactions. Legal status and tenure: Provision or denial of legal access to resources traditionally used by local communities is a major issue. Denial of access can lead to criminal sanctions if users continue to use the resources, and often results in conflict between managers and local people. Lack of clarity in legal status and tenure can affect local communities by creating uncertainties in relation to resource access rights. 3. Management factors This assessment considers issues relating to legal status, access and boundary issues as these affect the ease of management of the World Heritage site. The assessment of design in relation to management factors is based on three major elements: Legal status and tenure; access points; and neighbours, as explained here.



58

Legal status and tenure: The legal status of the World Heritage site can affect the extent to which managers are able to control activities within the site. Access points: Ease of access to the World Heritage site, through for example roads, affects the ability of managers to control entry. It is more difficult to prevent illegal exploitation of sites with numerous access points than those with a single access point. Neighbours: The location of boundaries may influence the number and nature of neighbours and the nature of cross-boundary issues. For example, boundaries that are aligned with natural features in the landscape/seascape may reduce the need for co-operative management of factors such as fire and feral/problem animals in and out of the site.



59

Worksheet for Tool 6: Design Assessment

1. Ecological integrity List major biodiversity and other natural values (refer to Tool 1a for list of major values): 1. _____________________________ 4. _______________________________ 7. ___________________________ 2. _____________________________ 5. _______________________________ 8. ___________________________ 3. _____________________________ 6. _______________________________ 9. __________________________ (Please refer to the guidelines on page 55-58 when completing this part of the worksheet)

Design aspect Strengths of World Heritage site

design in relation to this aspect

Weaknesses of World Heritage site


Comments and management

action to be taken if required

Key habitats

Size

External

interactions

Connectivity



60

2. Community well-being List major cultural, economic, educational and other social values and other community/site issues relating to the wellbeing of the community 1. _____________________________ 4. _______________________________ 7. ___________________________ 2. _____________________________ 5. _______________________________ 8. ___________________________ 3. _____________________________ 6. _______________________________ 9. __________________________

(Please refer to the guidelines on page 55-58 when completing this part of the worksheet)







Key area

Size

External

interactions

Legal status

and tenure



61

3. Management factors List management issues related to legal status, access, and boundary issues with neighbours : 1. _____________________________ 4. _______________________________ 7. ___________________________ 2. _____________________________ 5. _______________________________ 8. ___________________________ 3. _____________________________ 6. _______________________________ 9. __________________________ (Please refer to the guidelines on page 55-58 when completing this part of the worksheet)







Legal status

and tenure

Access points

Neighbours

Section 2 How appropriate are the management systems and processes?


62

How appropriate are the management

systems and processes? (Tools 7 & 8)

Inputs and process assessment The input assessment considers the resources that are required for effective management of the site, and measures these against the resources available. It thus has two steps, to address two questions: • An assessment of management needs to answer the question: What are the

inputs required for meeting the management objectives? • An assessment of whether the inputs available match the needs identified,

which answers the question: Does the site have the resources needed to meet its management objectives?

Sites usually have adequate information on most of the indicators, i.e. budget, equipment and infrastructure, staff and partners and some may maintain an asset register. Estimation of need allows identification of shortfalls in staff, funds and equipment in relation to planned management activities. More objective estimations of needs can strengthen proposals for funding from government, donors and other sources of support. Information on the extent and adequacy of resources available for management allows changes in staff and resource availability to be tracked over time. The use of the best possible management practices is essential for effective site management and a regular assessment of these can show how they can be improved. The process assessment rates the appropriateness and adequacy of the way in which management is carried out and the management systems that are in place. Specifically, it asks: • Are the best systems and standards of management being followed? • Are agreed policies and procedures in place and being followed? • How can the management practices be improved? The establishment of any best practice guidelines for site management can provide the easiest way to assess management process. Staff assessments and a range of documentation such as budget reviews, patrol logs and any monitoring activities being carried out can also provide information for this section.

Section 2 Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs


63

Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs

and Inputs

The two steps that can be taken to evaluate management needs and inputs (management needs and inputs going to the site) are considered below. If a site has a single source of inputs, this assessment is relatively straight forward. However, many sites receive inputs from several sources, e.g. government, NGOs, private sector, donors, making the assessment more complex, particularly if some inputs are in the form of funding and others in-kind. 1. Assessing management needs

The first step is to undertake a needs assessment by gathering information about what resources are required for the management of a site. The process outlined (see diagram below) provides a structured way of doing this using the management plan (or other planning document) for the site.

FOR EACH SECTION OF THE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

Staff requirement (days) Goods and services

required

One-off One-off Recurrent Recurrent

Total number of Days

Converted to number of staff

Cost of Wages Total Costs

COST OF

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION



64

The plan should set out the objectives of a sites (see Tool 1), as well as the proposed strategies that form the basis for day-to-day decision-making on the actions to be undertaken. These strategies can thus be costed to give an assessment of resource requirements or needs. It is important to consider that a management plan will be implemented over a period of time (often 5-10 years), therefore capital costs need to be assessed in relation to this. Capital costs are often higher at the beginning of the implementation period, when equipment has to be purchased and infrastructure installed. Each section of the management plan should be examined to determine the funds, equipment, staff time and other goods and services required for implementation of the proposed actions. 2. Assessing whether the inputs available match the management needs

The second step to be taken in an assessment of inputs is to compile information on available resources (staff, equipment, infrastructure and funding) and assess these in relation to the achievement of management objectives. Example worksheets (7a and b) for making an assessment of staff and budget needs and inputs are given below. These can be adapted to suit existing auditing and assessment systems used at a site; although financial statements and staff information may not be directly related to activities identified in a management plan. Thus, for example, it may be difficult to assess what level of input from a ranger is spent on species protection, community development activities etc.

Completing the worksheets

Worksheet 7a has been developed by the Ugandan Wildlife Authority for Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. It demonstrates an assessment for staff needs. Ideally standards should be developed against which to assess the level of training, for example, can be assessed, such as: • Very good – all staff are trained to an adequate level to carry out the

activities required • Good – more than 50 per cent of staff are trained to an adequate level to

carry out the activities required • Fair – between 40 and 50 per cent staff are trained to an adequate level to

carry out the activities required • Poor – most staff are not trained to an adequate level to carry out the

activities required Similar worksheets can be developed for other management needs and inputs such as equipment. Worksheet 7b, for example, assesses funding needs against actual budget and can be completed using existing budgeting processes and systems.

The input assessment can also be carried out by developing a financial or business plan for the site, which would include the management needs, inputs received and expected and a balance analysis. Ideally, the plan should be prepared for an extended period (for example, five years).



65

Worksheet 7a for Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Staff (Please refer to the guidelines on page 63-64 when completing this part of the worksheet)

Staff

category Location

Required

no. of

staff

Current

no. of

staff

No. of

trained

staff

Type of training

required

Level of Training

Comments/ Responses Poor

Fair

Good

Very

good



66

Worksheet 7b for Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Budget (Please refer to the guidelines on page 63-64 when completing this part of the worksheet)

Expenditure category Budget required Actual budget available Funding source(s) Comments

Section 2 Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes


67

Tool 8: Assessment of Management

Processes

As with all the tools in this workbook, site managers with stakeholders can adapt this tool to suit their own situation by defining their own criteria and desired standards for management practices. Rating the indicators in the worksheet provides an understanding of the standard of current management practices and thus, if assessments are carried out at intervals, provides a means to measure improvement in management and progress in actions. The rating derived is not intended to be used for comparing World Heritage sites, but rather to track progress of individual sites. The rating sheet can help to determine if the best management standards are being followed and to identify areas where management can be improved.


The starting point is to define the desired standards for each management issue. These should define the way in which management should be conducted if there were no constraints arising from deficiencies in funding, staffing numbers, staff skills, or other aspects of management. Information on best practices (where available) combined with professional experience and knowledge of local circumstances can be used to establish desired standards. In most cases standards will be descriptive, i.e. qualitative rather than quantitative, thus the assessment against desired standards will also be a qualitative process. The assessment should compare management against the desired standards using the worksheet 8a, adapted as necessary. The suggested ratings range from ‘Very Good’, where the desired standard has been met (and is defined in the column headed criteria) to ‘Poor’ where there has been complete failure to meet the desired standard. For example, success in reaching a standard for equipment/facility maintenance could be assessed as follows: • Very good: All equipment/facilities are regularly maintained – i.e. the standard

has been met. • Good: Most equipment/facilities are regularly maintained • Fair: Maintenance is only undertaken when equipment/facilities are in need of

repair • Poor: Little or no maintenance of equipment/facilities is undertaken For each standard assessed, notes should be made on the reasons for the ranking, in the explanation/comment column. This information can be used to identify the improvements needed. It is important to recognise that some aspects of management are beyond the control of managers. They should therefore not be held accountable for such shortcomings.



68

The development of standards and the assessment of performance against them should be a participatory process, involving not just the World Heritage site manager and staff, but also community representatives, external experts and other stakeholders. The adaptation of the worksheet will probably be carried out primarily by the management team, but the assessment should involve as wide a range of stakeholders as possible. Sites can also use the summary sheet (worksheet 8b) to provide an overall view of the effectiveness of management processes. The summary sheet suggests grouping the management issues according to three topics (management structures and systems; resource management; and management and people), but the groupings can be determined on a case-by-case basis according to questions developed for the worksheet. The summary can be expressed by adding together the different ratings (poor, fair, good and very good) for each group of management activities.



69

Worksheet 8a for Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes (Refer to page 67-68 for guidance on completing this worksheet)

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps

Management Structures and Systems

1. World Heritage values

Have values been identified and are these linked to management objectives?

The World Heritage site has agreed and documented values and the management objectives fully reflect them

Very good

The World Heritage site has agreed and documented values, but these are only partially reflected in the management objectives

Good

The World Heritage site has agreed and documented values, but these are not reflected in the management objectives

Fair

No values have been agreed for the World Heritage site

Poor

2. Management planning

Is there a plan and is it being implemented?

An approved management plan exists and is being fully implemented

Very good

Include details of the type of planning instrument being used (i.e. 10 year management)

An approved management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because of funding constraints or other problems (please state)

Good

A plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being implemented

Fair

There is no plan for managing the World Heritage site

Poor



70


3. Planning systems

Are the planning systems appropriate i.e. participation, consultation, review and updating?

Planning and decision making processes are excellent Very good

Consider opportunities for adjacent landholders and stakeholders to influence management planning; and details of the schedule and process for periodic review and updating of the management plan exists.

There are some planning and decision making processes in place but they could be better, either in terms of improved processes or actions completed

Good

There are some planning and decision making processes in place but they are either inadequate or they are not carried out

Fair

Planning and decision making processes are deficient in most aspects

Poor

4. Regular work plans

Are there annual work plans or other planning tools?

Regular work plans exist, actions are monitored against planned targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed

Very good

Include details of the type of planning instrument being used (i.e. annual work plan, tourism plan)

Regular work plans exist and actions are monitored against planned targets, but many activities are not completed

Good

Regular work plans exist but activities are not monitored against the plan’s targets

Fair

No regular work plans exist Poor

5. Monitoring and evaluation

A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and used for adaptive management

Very good

There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system of management activities but results are not systematically used for management

Good



71


Are management activities monitored against performance?

There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation of management activities, but no overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results

Fair

There is no monitoring and evaluation of management activities in the World Heritage site

Poor

6. Reporting

Are all the reporting requirements of the World Heritage site fulfilled?

Site managers can fully comply with all reporting needs and have all the necessary information for full and informative reporting

Very good

Site managers can fully comply with all reporting needs but do not have all the necessary information for full and informative reporting

Good

There is some reporting, but all reporting needs are not fulfilled and managers do not have all the necessary information on the site to allow full and informative reporting

Fair

There is no reporting on the World Heritage site Poor

7. Maintenance of equipment

Is equipment adequately maintained?

Equipment and facilities are well maintained and an equipment maintenance plan is being implemented

Very good

There is basic maintenance of equipment and facilities. If a maintenance plan exists it is not fully implemented.

Good

There is some ad hoc maintenance but a maintenance plan does not exist or is not implemented

Fair



72


There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities, and no maintenance plan

Poor

8. Management Infrastructure

Is management infrastructure (eg fire trails and fire towers) adequate for the needs of the site?

Management infrastructure is excellent and appropriate for managing the site

Very good

Management infrastructure is adequate and generally appropriate for the site

Good

Management infrastructure is often inadequate and/or inappropriate for the site

Fair

Management infrastructure is inadequate and/or inappropriate for the site

Poor

9. Staff facilities

Are the available facilities suitable for the management requirements of the site?

Staff facilities at the World Heritage site are good and aid the achievement of the objectives of the site

Very good

Facilities could range from staff accommodation to offices, guard posts etc

Staff facilities are not significantly constraining achievement of major objectives

Good

Inadequate staff facilities constrain achievement of some management objectives

Fair

Inadequate staff facilities mean that achievement of major objectives is constrained

Poor

10. Staff/

management communication

Staff directly participate in making decisions relating to management of the site at both site and management authority level

Very good



73


Do staff have the opportunity to feed into management decisions?

Staff directly contribute to some decisions relating to management

Good

Staff have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in the resulting decisions

Fair

There are no mechanisms for staff to have input into decisions relating to the management of the World Heritage site

Poor

11. Personnel management

How well are staff managed?

Provisions to ensure good personnel management are in place

Very good

Include details of the types of personnel management systems which are in place

Although some provisions for personnel management are in place these could be improved

Good

There are minimal provisions for good personnel management

Fair

There are no provisions to ensure good personnel management (e.g. staff appraisals, grievance procedures, promotion plans, insurance)

Poor

12. Staff training

Is staff adequately trained?

Staff training and skills are appropriate for the management needs of the site, and with anticipated future needs

Very good

Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to fully achieve the objectives of management

Good

Staff training and skills are low relative to the management needs of the site

Fair



74


Staff lack the skills/training needed for effective site management

Poor

13. Law

enforcement

Does staff have the capacity to enforce legislation?

The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations

Very good

Include information, for example, on what happens if people are arrested?

The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain

Good

There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol budget, staff management problems)

Fair

The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations

Poor

14. Financial management

Does the financial management system meet the critical management needs?

Financial management is excellent and contributes to effective management of the site

Very good

Include details on whether audits are regularly carried out and on the results

Financial management is adequate but could be improved

Good

Financial management is poor and constrains effectiveness

Fair

Financial management is poor and significantly undermines effectiveness of the World Heritage site (eg late release of funds for the financial year)

Poor

Resource Management

15. Managing resources

Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively implemented

Very good



75


Are there management mechanisms in place to control inappropriate land uses and activities (e.g. poaching)?

Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist but there are some problems in effectively implementing them

Good

Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist but there are major problems in implementing them effectively

Fair

There are no management mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the World Heritage site

Poor

16. Resource inventory

Is there enough information to manage the World Heritage site?

Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the World Heritage site is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is being updated

Very good

Detail which areas (i.e. critical habitats, species and/or cultural values) that have either sufficient or deficient information resources.

Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient for some areas of planning/decision making but further data gathering is not being carried out

Good

Some information is available on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the WH site, but this is insufficient to support planning and decision making

Fair

There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the World Heritage site

Poor

17. Research

There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of surveys and research, which is relevant to management needs

Very good



76


Is there a programme of management-orientated survey and research work?

There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed towards the needs of World Heritage site management

Good

There is some ad hoc survey and research work but it is not directed towards the needs of World Heritage site management.

Fair

There is no research taking place in the World Heritage site

Poor

18. Ecosystems and species

Is the biodiversity of the World Heritage site adequately managed?

Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are being fully implemented

Very good

Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are only being partially implemented

Good

Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are known but are not being implemented

Fair

Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species have not been assessed

Poor

19. Cultural/

historical resource management

Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are being substantially or fully implemented

Very good

Many requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are being implemented but some key issues may not be addressed

Good



77


Are the site’s cultural resources adequately managed?

Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are known but very few are being implemented

Fair

Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values have not been assessed and/or active management is not being undertaken

Poor

Management and Tourism

20. Visitor facilities

Are visitor facilities (for tourists, pilgrims etc) adequate?

Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation

Very good

Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation but could be improved

Good

Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation

Fair

There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need

Poor

21. Commercial tourism

Do commercial tour operators contribute to protected area management?

There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, and protect site values

Very good

There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain site values

Good

There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory matters

Fair

There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the protected area

Poor



78


22. Visitor opportunities Have plans been developed to provide visitors with the most appropriate access and diversity of experience when visiting the World Heritage site?

Implementation of visitor management policies and programmes is based on research into visitors’ needs and wants and the carrying capacity of the World Heritage site

Very good

Consideration has been given to the provision of visitor opportunities and policies and programmes to enhance visitor opportunities are being implemented

Good

Consideration has been given to the provision of visitor opportunities in terms of access to the World Heritage site or the diversity of available experiences but little or no action has been taken

Fair

No consideration has been given to the provision of visitor opportunities in terms of access to the World Heritage site or the diversity of available experiences

Poor

23. Education and awareness programme

Is there a planned education programme?

There is a planned, implemented and effective education and awareness programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the World Heritage site

Very good

There is a planned education and awareness programme but there are still serious gaps either in the plan or in implementation

Good

There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme, but no overall planning for this

Fair

There is no education and awareness programme

Poor



79


24. Access

Is visitor access sufficiently controlled?

Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Very good

Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Good

Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Fair

Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) are ineffective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Poor

Management and Communities/Neighbours

25. Local communities

Do local communities resident in or near the World Heritage site have input to management decisions?

Local communities directly participate in all relevant management decisions for the site

Very good

Local communities directly contribute to some relevant management decisions but their involvement could be improved

Good

Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in decision-making

Fair

Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of the World Heritage site

Poor



80


26. Indigenous people

Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident in or regularly using the site have input to management decisions?

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant management decisions for the site

Very good

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to making some relevant management decisions but their involvement could be improved

Good

Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in decision-making

Fair

Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the management of the site

Poor

27. Local, peoples welfare

Are there programmes developed by the World Heritage managers which consider local people’s welfare whilst conserving the sites resources?

Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage site resources, are being implemented successfully

Very good

Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage site resources, are being implemented but could be improved

Good

Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage site resources, exist but are either inadequate or are not being implemented

Fair

There are no programmes in place which aim to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare

Poor



81


28. State and commercial neighbours

Is there co-operation with neighbouring land/sea owners and users?

There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users, and substantial co-operation on management

Very good

There is contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users, but only some co-operation

Good

There is contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users but little or no cooperation

Fair

There is no contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users

Poor

29. Conflict resolution

If conflicts between the World Heritage site and stakeholders arise, are mechanisms in place to help find solutions?

Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist and are used whenever conflicts arise

Very good

Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist but are only partially effective

Good

Conflict resolution mechanisms exist, but are largely ineffective

Fair

No conflict resolution mechanisms exist Poor



82

Worksheet 8b for Tool 8: Assessment of

Management Processes - Summary (Refer to page 68 for guidance on completing this worksheet)

Management area Issue and rating Distribution of rating

Management

structures and

systems

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

P

F

G

VG

Resource

management

15

16

17

18

19

P

F

G

VG

Management and

Tourism

20

21

22

23

24

P

F

G

VG

Management and

Communities

/Neighbours

25

26

27

28

29

P

F

G

VG

Section 2 Are management objectives being met and values conserved?


83

Are management objectives being met and

values conserved? (Tools 9-12)

Output and Outcome Assessment The output assessment asks whether the management plan and/or work programme is being implemented and what are the results, or outputs, from the management process? Some suggested indicators are given below:

• Is the management plan/work programme being implemented? And if not, why not? This involves comparing actual work carried out over a period with the planned work programme and budget, and in the longer term by assessing the extent to which the management plan or management objectives are being implemented.

• What are the results/outputs of site management?

Some common work output statistics include:

– The number of visitors, enquiries, and/or researchers to the site, and the number of services used (for example, guided walks/tours, camping, visits to displays).

– The number of meetings held with the local community, seminars attended, patrols undertaken, areas surveyed, prosecutions sought for illegal activity).

– Physical measures of results, for example, the length of boundaries marked, brochures produced, number and value of development projects completed.

Information on outputs can generally be found in annual reports and other review activities carried out by the site management team. The outcome assessment aims to assess what the real impacts of management have been. It looks beyond the implementation of immediate management activities to the longer term success of the site by answering the question: Has management resulted in protection or enhancement of the site’s values and have the principal management objectives been achieved? As explained in Assessment Tool 1, for this question to be answered it is important to clearly understand the major values and objectives which both guide site management and relate to the overall vision for the site. Depending on the range of values, the outcome assessment is likely look at both: � Ecological integrity: e.g. changes in or maintenance of species populations,

habitat integrity, ecosystem services etc; and � Achievement of management objectives relating to management of cultural

and recreational resources, the wellbeing of local communities, visitors etc.

Section 2 Are management objectives being met and values conserved?


84

Since natural World Heritage sites are listed for their biodiversity value, the monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity health is perhaps the most important element in an assessment of management effectiveness. If management actions are not resulting in the maintenance or improvement of the biodiversity and other natural values identified as the focus for management, and in the mitigation of the most serious threats, then ‘adaptation’ will be required. Although biodiversity values are the most important for natural World Heritage sites, most sites also have cultural, economic or social objectives and the outcomes in relation to these objectives should also be assessed.

Understanding the cause-and-effect linkages between management and outcomes is important when identifying how management can be improved: i.e. in driving adaptive management. The outcomes of management are therefore of critical importance but it can be very difficult to measure them accurately, and to determine the causes of observed trends. For example, well managed protected areas may suffer damage to their ‘values’ if there are major threats that cannot be addressed by the managers, such as the impacts of climate change, while some poorly managed protected areas may remain relatively pristine if there are no significant threats.

Section 2 Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation


85

Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan

Implementation

The aim of this assessment tool is to provide managers and the broader community with information on progress on implementing the management plan (or other primary plan), both generally and at the level of individual components of the plan. Information on progress in implementing a plan can be recorded in two ways; first as a description of the work undertaken in relation to each action in the plan; and second, by categorising progress of each of the identified actions in the plan according to seven ranking options:

1. Action has been completed or policy is in place and is being adhered to;

2. Action is making substantial progress in all areas (i.e. policy and/or

planning stages are complete and implementation is happening in all areas; staff time and funds have been allocated);

3. Some work has commenced in all or some areas (i.e. policy and/or planning

stages are complete; staff time and funds have been allocated); 4. Policy and/or planning stages are complete but have not been

implemented; 5. Planning is in progress (staff time allocated; funding for planning

allocated); 6. Work is only reactive and not to a set plan (i.e. no funding or staff time

allocated to planning); 7. Action has not commenced.

A database can be set up to facilitate this process. It should contain all the policies, guidelines and specific actions detailed in the management plan, preferably grouped to reflect the structure of the plan, and ideally listed according to each management objective. Information on the completion of activities detailed in annual work plans and reports can then be collected and recorded at the end of each financial/operational year by the manager and staff on how far each management action has progressed.

Section 2 Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation


86

As results from a number of years are collected, more detailed analysis of implementation progress and trends becomes possible. The flexible searching capabilities of a database allow the status of different components of the plan to be investigated. The results of this assessment tool can be presented in annual reports or other reporting documents. For example:

Summary of the output assessment of the 1996-2000 plan for Serengeti National Park, Tanzania (this plan specifically dealt with issues relating to tourism due to increasing tourism pressure on the park).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Completed Substantialprogress

Planningcomplete, work

commenced

Policy/planningcomplete

Planning inprogress

Reactive workonly

Not commenced

Status of actions in plan

Num

ber

of a

ctio

ns 1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Section 2 Tool 10: Work/Site Output Indicators


87

Tool 10: Work/Site Output Indicators Assessing the achievement of annual work programme targets and other indicators of outputs from the World Heritage site (e.g. visitor statistics, numbers of law enforcement patrols etc) (i.e. measures of ‘productivity’ - or outputs) can supplement information on achievement of outcomes and management plan implementation. Work output measures are usually expressed in a numeric or quantifiable way and hence can be assessed by monitoring against these measures. Other attributes such as visitor numbers may not be expressed as work output measures in the sense that any particular number of visitors is desired or is a product of direct management action but monitoring changes in these attributes will give some indication of changes in demands placed on management and may assist in assessing community costs and benefits arising from the site. Developing a set of work output indicators can be part of the establishment of an effective management information system for a site. The products and services resulting from management of a World Heritage site can be measured using several indicators, including: • numbers of users: e.g. numbers of visitors, numbers of people using a service,

numbers of inquiries answered • volume of work output: e.g. numbers of meetings held with local communities;

number of patrols undertaken, extent of area surveyed in a research programme, numbers of prosecutions instigated

• physical outputs: e.g. length of site boundary delineated and marked, numbers of brochures produced or distributed, number and value of development projects completed).

Assessment of outputs from a planned work programme requires that the outputs have been defined, or (in some cases) that targets (either quantitative or qualitative) have been set. The assessment can be carried out by measuring: • actual work undertaken versus work planned work, e.g. numbers of patrols

undertaken, extent to which planned capital works programme has been completed; and

• actual versus planned expenditure. Completing the worksheet

The worksheet below provides a simple format for measuring progress in achieving outputs. The outputs to be monitored should have been decided in advance, for example at a manager’s workshop preferably when the management plan or annual work plan is being developed. Outputs should:



88

• be activities that are important for achieving the overall objectives for the site;

• reflect the nature and use of the site; • be part of annual reporting requirements. An example of a work output indicator is given below:

� Indicator: Law enforcement patrols � Work output target: 100 patrols per year with coverage of all border areas

of park at least once per month � Performance: 95 patrols undertaken, coverage of all border areas achieved

each month with exception of remote northern region of park where patrols were only undertaken every 2nd month

� Performance/level in previous year: 80 patrols undertaken, with coverage of all border areas completed every 3rd month

Assessment of work undertaken and expenditures made are a routine component of management in order to provide accountability to management authorities, donors and others who are in positions of responsibility or who provide support (either financially or in kind) to the site. Financial information can be added to the worksheet below if this available. It is also important to integrate this activity into the planning and management cycle, in order to improve planning and management in the future, as well as for reporting on what has happened in the past.



89

Worksheet for Tool 10: Assessing Outputs (Refer to page 87-88 for guidance)

Indicator Work output

target

Performance Performance/level

in previous year

Notes

Section 2 Tool 11: Assessing Outcomes – Ecological Integrity


90

Ecological Integrity is the state of ecosystem development that is characteristic for its geographic location, has a full range of native species and supporting processes and is viable, and as such is likely to persist.

Tool 11: Assessing the Outcomes of

Management – Ecological Integrity In order to assess the outcomes of management of a site – i.e. whether management is actually protecting the unique values for which the site was designated – a monitoring programme is needed. This should ideally be ongoing and once established will be able to provide the information required to undertaken an assessment. The reasons for designation of a World Heritage site will determine exactly what is monitored, although for natural sites monitoring should relate to the sites ecological integrity (i.e. the systems ability to conserve the biodiversity and other natural values identified in tool 1). The following section focuses on monitoring ecological integrity, but monitoring social outcomes is also important and can contribute to assessing achievement of management objectives relating to socio-economic and cultural values (see tool 12). Many protected areas already carry out some biological monitoring for which there are already well defined monitoring protocols. These data can certainly contribute to a more comprehensive monitoring system but generally give an incomplete picture of ecological integrity. Large mammals for instance are often more adaptable to changing conditions than many invertebrates and plants; elephants can continue to live in degraded forests where much biodiversity has been lost so that monitoring elephants doesn’t tell us much about more vulnerable species. The skill in developing a monitoring system is to select a few indicators that capture as much information as possible about different aspects of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning without costing an unrealistic amount or taking too much time to monitor. Indicators need to give information about biodiversity (e.g. species, genetic richness, population dynamics and trophic structure) and ecosystem functioning (e.g. succession, vegetation age-class distributions, productivity and decomposition). Lack of time and money may mean that not all values can be adequately monitored and in these cases priority should be given to those that are most important for the site. The assessment tool below thus includes a process for: • Developing a monitoring plan (or deciding if an existing one is adequate); and • Assessing outcomes using the results of monitoring.



91

Even in sites with an existing monitoring system it may be worth spending time assessing whether it fulfils all the requirements of the outcome assessment. The diagram below suggests a step-by-step process to assess the outcomes of management and each step is subsequently explained in more details in the following text. Although the steps are listed in sequence, some may take place simultaneously; also step 1 should already have been completed earlier in the assessment so sites are likely to start this assessment at step 2 below.

Step 1: Agreeing the major site values (see tool 1) has already identified a group of attributes that need to be monitored

Step 2: Make an initial choice of measures / indicators to reflect the major site values

Step 5: Compare data needed with existing monitoring processes / data and identify gaps

Optional step 3a: identify responses to a breach of the thresholds

Note: although the arrows suggest a sequence, several of these stages will usually take place simultaneously

Step 6: Develop detailed monitoring protocols

Step 8: Assessment of management outcomes (initially to

establish a baseline and then to monitor against this baseline)

Step 7: Develop a data management system

Step 4: Finalise indicators

Step 3: Refine this draft list of indicators and determine their thresholds and power to detect change



92

Each of these steps is discussed in more detail below. Designing a monitoring system for outcome assessment

Step 1: Agreeing the major site values (Tool 1a) has already identified a group of attributes that need to be monitored The first tool suggested in this workbook helps World Heritage sites to identify major site values (tool 1a), which in turn should provide a focus for site management (tool 1b). The need to maintain or improve the integrity of values provides the basis for developing and monitoring a series of indicators. Step 2: Make an initial choice of measures / indicators to reflect the major site values and principal objectives Indicators should thus be selected for each major value. They may be either quantitative or qualitative, and should consider the following attributes: • have an clear, predictable and verifiable relationship to the integrity of the

value being assessed • be sensitive to changes in the particular outcome being measured • reflect long-term changes rather than short-term or localised fluctuations in

conditions • reflect changes that will have direct implications for management (including

biophysical, social, cultural, economic and political changes) • reflect changes at spatial and temporal scales of relevance to management • be cost-effective in terms of data collection, analysis and interpretation • be simple to measure and interpret • be easily understood by non-specialists • be able to be collected, analysed and reported on in a timely fashion • assess impacts of known pressures and detect new pressures. The table below provides some examples of indicators that might be useful for World Heritage sites in terms of measuring ecological values.

What the

indicator

measures

Questions to be

answered Possible indicators

Size � Is the World Heritage site large and intact enough to provide long-term security to all species?

� Are species populations or habitat areas sufficiently large to maintain themselves?

� Populations of range dependent species such as top carnivores / herbivores

� Populations of species that cannot survive outside the World Heritage site



93

What the

indicator

measures

Questions to be

answered Possible indicators

Ecosystem functioning

� Is the whole ecosystem functioning sustainably?

� Are food webs working?

� Specific microhabitats (e.g. dead wood, presence / absence of coral bleaching, savannah mosaic)

� Specific food sources (e.g. krill population, invertebrates, fruit trees)

Renewal � Are long-lived species renewing their populations?

� Are natural disturbance patterns being followed?

� Presence of young populations of long-lived species (e.g. of trees and corals)

� Presence of natural disturbance factors and a full age range (e.g. natural fire regimes, old trees, natural flooding patterns on rivers)

Uniqueness � Are rare / endemic species being conserved?

� Are species of special cultural value being conserved?

� Populations of rare and endemic species

� Populations of species likely to be of particular concern to those visiting the protected area

Diversity � Is overall diversity being maintained?

� Occasional repeat sampling of particular plant or invertebrate groups

� Population of migratory species

Threats � Is the protected area being degraded?

� Measurement of specific, identified ecological threats over time

When choosing indicators it is important to differentiate clearly between measures of outputs and outcomes. An output is generally an agreed action to improve management whereas an outcome is a measure of whether the overall management is achieving its long-term ecological and social aims. For example, an output might be ‘illegal bushmeat exploitation in the protected area reduced’ while the consequent outcome might be ‘populations of threatened primates stabilised and restored’. Hence, outcome monitoring would involve measuring trends in populations of primates and not just changes in poaching levels, since reducing bushmeat trade does not guarantee population recovery – the primate might find it difficult to rebuild population numbers or there could be other threats. Step 3: Refine this draft list of indicators and determine their thresholds and power to detect change The initial list of indicators will probably be too long in terms of the budget and capacity available for monitoring and so a smaller subset will need to be selected. This process will take time, will probably involve workshops and should if at all feasible include expert input to ensure that the best possible suite of indicators is chosen.



94

Crucially, indicators should be able to measure change effectively. In relation to assessing ecological integrity, conservation efforts should aim at maintaining the site’s values within acceptable ranges of variation in order to preserve a healthy status over the long-term. An acceptable range of variation is determined by the thresholds which, if exceeded, suggest that there is likely to be a long-term problem. Once these thresholds are exceeded you would expect to observe the ecological system beginning to degrade or change, recovery is unlikely if the adverse factors continue to operate and thus management interventions will be needed. For example, if fire is important to the ecological integrity of savannah, and under natural conditions it usually returns every 10-15 years, if fires occur either significantly more or less frequently than the savannah will degrade. For each indicator a minimum integrity threshold should be defined: i.e. a level beyond which urgent management intervention will be needed. In many ecosystems these thresholds will be difficult to identify and in some cases may be little more than educated guesses: it may therefore be necessary to introduce a ‘confidence level rating’ to each threshold. Thus where thresholds are science-based decisions backed by long-term monitoring and assessment a high level of confidence can be given. Other thresholds may have only a medium level of confidence if based on sound judgement and long-term experience, but not backed by research, monitoring or assessment. Thresholds with a low level of confidence are likely to correlate with areas which are lacking in research, monitoring and assessment and where thresholds are little more than ‘educated guesses’. Where ever possible future research, monitoring and assessment plans should include projects which will help increase the lower confidence levels of thresholds. Any identified threshold levels should be listed next to the indicator in column 1 of the worksheet Optional step 3a: Identify responses to a potential breach of the thresholds It is also useful to identify the management interventions that will be needed if a threshold is likely to be exceeded. These can be included in the monitoring plan to help prompt quick reactions if monitoring identifies serious problems. Step 4: Finalise indicators The list of indicators should be reviewed in a final consultation process. The indicators not only measure progress but can also help to set management priorities and responses and their planning should therefore not be rushed. Once indicators have been chosen, a monitoring plan can be developed and the worksheet template provided here (see page 99-100) can be used for this purpose. Separate worksheets should be filled out for each indicator, and each should include a short description of why the indicator was chosen and how it relates to the outcome of the particular value that it is measuring.



95

Step 5: Compare data needed with existing monitoring processes / data and identify gaps There are many means to go about measuring indicators, including direct measurement by park staff, partnerships with external scientists or with local communities, or through directed investments into development of baseline data, such as those involved in Rapid Ecological Evaluations. Ultimately, these various methods and monitoring priorities must be integrated within a site-based monitoring plan. Current monitoring activities and any new activities needed for measuring newly added indicators can be entered in column 3 of the planning worksheet. It is often possible to measure more than one indicator through a single monitoring activity (e.g. monitoring coral reef health involves laying line transects and data on several indicators (e.g. corals, fish) can be collected along the same transect). Therefore once worksheets have been filled in for individual indicators they should be looked at together to see how a coherent monitoring plan can be developed to collect the available information with the least cost and effort. The overall monitoring plan should be reviewed and approved by key stakeholders.

Step 6: Develop a detailed monitoring protocol The plan laid out in the worksheet provides a general outline for the monitoring programme. More detailed monitoring protocols then need to be developed to ensure quality and credibility, so that monitoring is carried out consistently, data are suitable for comparative analysis, and any changes detected are real and not due to differences in sampling, for instance if staff change. Monitoring protocols should be reviewed and tested, and provision for review and revision built into the protocol. Ideally protocols should include: i) Background Information

• Objectives: Why monitoring is being carried out. This should be linked to the indicator (s) monitored and the thresholds used

• Bibliography: a list of relevant material (e.g. journal articles and reports) and information on previous activities (including constraints to monitoring activities)

Additional information on monitoring protocols: – Guidelines for long-term

monitoring protocols, printed in the Wildlife Society Bulletin 2003 31(4) 1000-1003. See:science.nature.nps.gov/im/ monitor/protocols/ProtocolGuidelines.pdf

– Environment Canada’s Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network protocols on Biodiversity Monitoring; Ecosystem

Monitoring and Community-

based Monitoring. See:

www.eman-rese.ca/eman/ – US National Parks Service

Inventory and Monitoring

Program . See

science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/index.htm



96

ii) Protocol Design

• Method: Method or methods used (e.g. sampling, interviews, observation, line transect techniques, traps or strip census methodology)

• Procedures: Standardised procedures for collecting data, including, area of monitoring, staffing requirements (e.g. numbers, required training, time allocated), equipment requirements (e.g. vehicles, binoculars, GIS, traps) and safety procedures

• Frequency of data collection: i.e. monthly, quarterly, annually etc • Data collection: Indicators to be measured (e.g. species, numbers of

sightings, fire frequency, average earnings of local communities) • Data analysis: advice regarding analysis and comparison (e.g. use of graphs,

analysis software, comparisons etc) • Data management: Records should include the monitoring results (data sets)

and the history of monitoring development and revision (see step 7) iii) Protocol Adaptation

• Review: As with all management activities undertaken in a World Heritage site, monitoring activities should be regularly reviewed to ensure that not only are the right things being monitored, but that this monitoring is being carried out in the most effective way

• Revision: Although protocols aim to ensure standardisation of monitoring (for the reasons discussed above) protocols should also adapted and revised if the review process indicates this need. Revision may need to take place due to changes in technology, gaps in data need, budget changes, changing conditions on the ground including new pressures, etc.

A summary of the protocol is put in column 4 of the worksheet. Column 5 gives the cost and funding source for each monitoring activity. Resources available for monitoring may well act as a reality test for the process of indicator choice and monitoring needs, as most sites will have only limited budgets available for monitoring. However, this column of the worksheet can also be used to highlight gaps in monitoring (e.g. new monitoring activities that are required but for which there is no funding) and as a basis for fundraising or reallocating available budgets. Step 7: Develop a data management system Data collected as a result of monitoring must be carefully stored in a form that can be readily accessed for analysis and interpretation. It is therefore essential to develop a good data management system, preferably electronic, although a carefully maintained manual filing system can be effective. Monitoring programmes often fail to be useful because the data are not stored or are kept in a form that makes them difficult to use later.



97

Assessing outcomes

Step 8: Assessment of management outcomes (initially to establish a baseline and then to monitor against this baseline) Once the indicators and thresholds have been agreed, monitoring activities undertaken and data management systems put in place, an assessment of management outcomes, the final step of making an assessment of management effectiveness of the World Heritage site, can be undertaken. Completing the worksheets

Worksheet 11a provides a template for a monitoring plan, providing space to record steps 3 to 7 detailed above. Worksheet 11b: Assessment of Management Outcomes (see page 100), provides a format for reporting on the assessment of the status of each indicator (i.e. step 8 above). The assessment should be made through a participatory process; for instance an initial workshop to develop a draft assessment followed by a consultation period and final workshop to approve the assessment. For each major site value, the indicator/s minimum integrity threshold should be considered against the monitoring data. Worksheet 11a provides space for a written description of the status of the indicator (column 3) and detailing the management implications if the status of the threshold changes (column 5). We also propose using a rating system (column 4) for showing status and trends of indicators, which can help provide a simply understood summary of the health of an indicator. The proposed coloured coding (tinted boxes) could be substituted for a numerical rating although scores are important for each indicator rather than an average score for the site. The rating system below suggests a two part system: the tinted boxes summarise column 3, the status of the indicator, and the arrows summarise the trend (i.e. whether the condition is getting better or worse) and thus relates to the urgency of the management interventions detailed in column 5.

Condition is improving

Condition is unchanged

Condition is deteriorating

Significant concern

Caution: may be a developing concern

Good: all appears to be fine



98

Thus the symbol on the right would summarise an indicator the status of which is of significant concern but which is showing an improving trend, thus indicating that management interventions were succeeding and should continue at the current level. Whilst this symbol would depict an indicator which despite its status still being within the minimum integrity threshold, and thus good, was overall showing a deteriorating trend and thus should be subject to urgent management actions.

Section 2 Tool 11: Outcomes of Management


99

Worksheet 11a for Tool 11: Plan for Monitoring the Outcomes of Management

Indicator: _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Major Site Values assessed by the indicator: __________________________________________________________________

Justification for selection: ________________________________________________________________________________


Minimum

integrity

thresholds

Confidence

level of

threshold

Monitoring activity Monitoring protocol

(including frequency of measurement and person/s responsible)

Cost and

funding

source

Management implications

Current:

New:

Current:

New:

Section 2 Tool 11: Outcomes of Management


100

Worksheet 11b for Tool 11: Assessment of Outcomes of Management

Major Site Values: ______________________________________________________


Indicator Minimum Integrity

Threshold (determined in Worksheet 1)

Status of indicator in

relation to threshold Rating

Management interventions:

urgency and details of actions

Section 2 Tool 12: Assessing Outcomes – Principal Objectives


101

Tool 12: Assessing the Outcomes of

Management – Achievement of Principal

Objectives In addition to monitoring ecological integrity, it is also important to assess the achievement of other principal management objectives that relate to things such as social and economic benefits, cultural resources, tourism and recreation provision that may be set out in the management plan for the site.

The principal objectives for the site were identified using Tool 1b. The next step is to clearly state the desired outcome in relation to each objective. It is important to differentiate between outcomes and outputs. So, for example, an outcome might be to enhance community livelihoods for people living adjacent to the site, whereas an associated output could be to develop fuelwood plots in a certain part of the buffer zone. Similarly, another outcome for an objective might be to provide high quality ecotourism experiences for visitors and a related output might be to conduct daily ranger-guided wildlife viewing safaris. For assessing achievement of objectives it is important to focus on these outcomes not the delivery of the outputs. Hence in this last example, we would want to monitor the quality of experience through visitor surveys or similar means not just record the number of visitors who used the guide service. It is usually not possible to measure achievement of objectives directly, because they are often stated in relatively general terms and involve many different aspects, not all of which can be measured or assessed. So some approximate measure of achievement is needed. These approximate measures are called performance indicators. They may be either quantitative or qualitative, but they should have the following attributes listed for good ecological indicators on page 92.


A five-step process can be used to design the outcome monitoring programme, which is summarised in worksheet 12 below. Each principle objective and the desired outcome for the objective is listed. The assessment then takes the following steps which can be recorded in the table provided in the worksheet: • Firstly (column 1), decide on the general aspects of the objective that should

(and can) be assessed (performance assessment). This will mean identifying what are the important elements that constitute the objective. An example in relation to an objective for enhancing livelihoods of adjacent communities could be household income.



102

• For each of the performance assessment areas, indicators are then selected (column 2). If possible, only one or two indicators should be selected for each area of performance assessment to ensure that a practically achievable program is developed.

• For each indicator, specify a target value for achievement (column 2): to

continue the example from above, the indicator could be average household income with a target of US$x per month

• For each performance indicator, it is then necessary to specify exactly

what information will be collected and how this will be done (column 3).

• The final step in the process is to monitor and analyse the indicators and assess performance in relation to the specified targets (column 4).



103

Worksheet for Tool 12: Achievement of

Principal Management Objectives Assessment

Principal Management Objective:________________________________

Desired outcomes:_____________________________________


Performance

assessment

Performance

indicators and target

Data and

methods of

collection

Assessment of

indicator in

relation to target

Section 2 Glossary


104

GLOSSARY Adaptive management: incorporates learning into conservation. Specifically, it is the integration of design, management, and monitoring to test assumptions in order to adapt and learn.

Assessment or evaluation: the periodic collection and assessment of data to measure progress towards the objectives of a specific project, plan or programme. Ecological Integrity: a state of ecosystem development that is characteristic for its geographic location, has a full range of native species and supporting processes and is viable, i.e. is likely to persist.

Indicators: are measurable entities that are used to assess the status and trend of a range of site values. A given goal, objective, or additional information need can have multiple indicators. A good indicator meets the criteria of being: measurable, precise, consistent, and sensitive.

Monitoring: involves the collection and analysis of repeated observations or measurements to evaluate changes in condition. Objectives: specific statements detailing the desired accomplishments or outcomes of a particular set of activities, i.e. management of a World Heritage site. There will typically be multiple objectives. Outstanding universal value: cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a whole.

Protected area management effectiveness: an assessment of protected area management which measures the degree to which an area is protecting its values and achieving its goals and objectives.

Section 2 Acknowledgements


105

Acknowledgements The Enhancing our Heritage project would not have progressed without the help and support of many people. In particular, we would like to thank all those who are implementing the project at the nine pilot sites. Thanks especially to the following people for their continued support and enthusiastic participation in the project over the past number of years – Moses Mapesa and Ghad Mugiri (Bwindi Impenetrable National Park); Ephraim Mwangomo (Serengeti National Park); Lindsay Chong-Seng and Ronny Renaud (Aldabra Atoll); Diego Diaz Martin and Isabel Novo (Canaima National Park); Jorge Rivas (Sangay National Park); as well as the people involved in regional coordination - Marina Cracco (Latin America), B.C Choudhury (South Asia) and Maurice Nyaligu (East Africa). Thanks also goes to the USDA Forest Service for funding the start up and development phase of the project and, of course, the United Nations Foundation for funding the whole project, and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre in Paris and IUCN (headquarters and regional offices) for supporting project implementation. The development of this 2007 version of the workbook would not have been possible without the hard work of all those at the sites that tried and tested the first and second editions of the workbook. This edition also greatly benefited from a review by African site managers at a workshop in Nairobi in August 2006. Thanks also to TNC for helping organise and to all those who attended (B C Choudhury, José Corrau, Nigel Dudley, Ian Dutton, Jamie Ervin, Marc Hockings, Richard Margoluis, Jeffrey Parrish, Seema Paul, Nick Salafsky, Dan Salzer, Sue Stolton and Stephen Woodley) a workshop on Ecological Integrity held in Washington DC, in April 2004. The workshop reviewed experiences of ecological integrity / biodiversity health assessment from Parks Canada, The Nature Conservancy, the Enhancing our Heritage project and other experiences, reached consensus on a generic model suitable for use by the Enhancing our Heritage project and discussed and made proposals regarding revisions to the Enhancing our Heritage workbook relating to biodiversity health and threat assessment. We would also like to thank B C Choudhury and Sue Wells for commenting on the various drafts of this work book. .

Section 2 Acknowledgements


106

Monitoring and managing for success in natural worl d heritage sites

Monitoreo y manejo para el éxito de los sitios de p atrimonio

Contact: Marc Hockings. School of Natural and Rural Systems Management, Gatton Campus, University of Queensland, 4343 Australia. Tel: +61-7-5460-1140 Fax: +61-7–460-1324

Email: [email protected] www.enhancingheritage.com