Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Evaluation Methodologies
A. The Nature Conservancy Parks in Peril Scorecard and “Measures of Success” methodology
In 1990, The Nature Conservancy launched its Parks in Peril program with the objective of establishing minimal critical management in sixty parks in eighteen countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. 147/ The Parks in Peril Scorecard was developed to support and monitor progress in this program. In using this approach, management effectiveness is assessed by scoring management capacity against pre-defined benchmarks on 16 key indicators of protected area functionality. The components of functionality are grouped in four areas:
Basic protection activities. The indicators in this area are: physical infrastructure, on-site personnel, training, land tenure issues, threats analysis, and official protected areas status.
Long-term management. The indicators are: zoning and buffer zone management, site-based long-term management plan, conservation science needs assessment, and monitoring plan development and implementation.
Long-term financing. The indicators in this area are: NGO self-sufficiency plan, and Parks in Peril Site long-term financial plan.
Site constituency. The indicators are: broad-based management committee/technical advisory committee, community involvement in compatible resource use, development of policy agenda at national/regional/local levels, and environmental education programmes.
Each item is assessed on a five-point scale, where 5 = Excellent (proper management of the PA is ensured) and 1 = No work has begun (PA is completely non-functional). Using this methodology allows progress over time to be assessed. The approach focuses on the evaluation of management inputs and processes, rather than conservation outcomes or threat reduction. 148/
Building on the Parks in Peril program and its experience in the United States and Asia, TNC developed a systematic methodology for determining measures of conservation success, which it defines as “making substantial progress towards (1) the long-term abatement of critical threats and (2) the sustained maintenance or enhancement of conservation target viability at sites identified for Conservancy Action.” TNC’s framework assesses three general dimensions of success; biodiversity health, threat status and abatement, and conservation capacity, each of which is determined by a set of indicators and a ranking procedure. The framework is an integral part of TNC’s site-planning methodology, and is discussed in detail in their practitioner’s handbook for site conservation planning, discussed above. 149/
B. WWF/CATIE protected areas evaluation methodology for Latin America
WWF and the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) have developed an approach for evaluating and improving the management of protected areas in Latin America. This methodology has been used over a range of protected area categories in countries such as Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Brazil, and has been used to evaluate the management effectiveness of a subsystem of protected areas in the Osa Conservation Area of southern Costa Rica. Protected areas management effectiveness may therefore be measured at three levels using this approach: Individual protected areas, systems (or subsystems) of protected areas, and the performance of the protected area administration within its zones of influence. 150/
Management indicators are grouped into a number of management fields (ambitos): Administrative; political; legal; planning; knowledge; present use (legal and illegal); management programmes; biographical characteristics; and threats. Although the methodology does not specifically identify indicators that evaluate processes, products, or design aspects of protected areas, there are incorporated in all ten ambitos that affect protected area management.
Indicators are tested against conservation objectives for a protected area, and scored on a scale of ‘0’ (unsatisfactory) to ‘4’ (very satisfactory). These scores are then summed for all indicators in each ambito – the total score in each ambito is then compared to an optimal score, providing a basis for assessing management effectiveness. Overall, a protected area obtains a value for its management through the sum of all the values of all the ambitos, expressed as a percentage of the optimal total. In using this system, the effectiveness of various ambitos within a protected area may be assessed, and results may be compared to other protected areas. 151/
C. WWF/IBAMA Brazil protected areas effectiveness evaluation
WWF and the Brazilian Environment Institute (IBAMA) set out in 1998 to evaluate 86 protected areas in the country, many of which lacked the financial and human resources needed for effective management. Eight key indicators were selected to measure the implementation of protected area aims. These included: tenure of the land; boundary demarcation; existence of a management plan; presence or absence of illegal activities within the protected area; budget received in relation to budget requested; staff numbers; adequacy of equipment; and adequacy of infrastructure. A further five indicators were selected to measure vulnerability: degree of fragmentation; percentage of degraded land within the protected area; illegal exploitation of resources within the protected area; use of land in the buffer zone; and presence of development projects within the buffer zone.
These indicators were assessed through a number of questions and quantitatively scored. Judgments about the degree of implementation of a protected area and its vulnerability were subsequently made on the basis of the average score obtained for relevant questions. Results of the study indicated that 47 of 86 areas were largely unimplemented, while 37 of 86 areas were felt to be vulnerable or highly vulnerable to human activity.
The last part of the analysis involved preparing a “risk matrix”, whereby 23 percent of sites were determined to be at “extremely high risk” due to high vulnerability and low implementation scores. The indicators selected for this assessment address issues of “requirements” (inputs) and management processes, with some consideration given to threats (context) and outcomes. The results of the evaluation survey directly led to the passing of a government Bill on the establishment of a National System of Protected Areas. 152/
