by Liza Higgins-Zogib and Leonardo Lacerda, Protected Areas Initiative, WWF International
RAPPAM Workshop in LAO PDR © Liza Higgins-Zogib
Implemented in over twenty countries and in more than 850 protected areas (see Table 9), WWF's Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) methodology63 is currently the most widely used approach to carry out rapid assessments of the management effectiveness of protected area networks. RAPPAM provides policy makers and protected area authorities with a relatively quick and easy method to identify major trends and issues that need to be addressed for improving management effectiveness in any given system of protected areas – be it in a country, region or ecoregion. As such, with limited funds, authorities responsible for managing systems of protected areas have been able to analyse the range of major threats facing their protected area systems and to:
get a broad overview of the most pressing management issues they face;
look at how the system as a whole is functioning and performing; and
agree on needed corrective steps that will lead to improved system-level management effectiveness.
Beyond anecdotal evidence, it is still too early to report on the extent to which protected area management authorities have adhered to and actually implemented the major recommendations stemming from these RAPPAM assessments. But the experiences accumulated during the repeated applications of the methodology have taught us important lessons. A few case studies and some of the key lessons learned thus far are discussed below.
As the Parties to the CBD have made commitments to assess their protected area systems by 2010, many more countries, provinces and states have expressed interest in using RAPPAM. Key challenges for the future are to ensure that there is sufficient funding and technical support for helping protected area management authorities to carry out such assessments; ensure a prompt and meaningful response to the recommendations produced as a result of the assessment process; systematically record the decisions related to the recommendations and their impact in actually improving management effectiveness; and ensure that system-wide protected area assessments become a periodic routine in the management process of management authorities, and not a one-off exercise.
Table 9. Countries where RAPPAM assessments have been conducted (by December 2005)
The RAPPAM methodology is designed for broad-level comparisons among many protected areas that together make a protected area network or system. It can:
Identify management strengths and weaknesses;
Analyse the scope, severity, prevalence and distribution of a variety of threats and pressures;
Identify areas of high ecological and social importance and vulnerability;
Indicate the urgency and conservation priority for individual protected areas;
Help to develop and prioritize appropriate policy interventions and follow-up steps to improve protected area management effectiveness.
It can also answer a number of important questions:
What are the main threats affecting the protected area system, and how serious are they?
How do protected areas compare with one another in terms of infrastructure and management capacity? And how do they compare in effectively producing outputs and conservation outcomes as a result of their management?
What is the urgency for taking actions in each protected area?
What is the overall level of integrity and degradation of each protected area? What are the important gaps in representation, and what steps can be taken?
How well do national and local policies support the effective management of protected areas? Are there gaps in legislation and what are the governance improvements that are needed?
What are the most strategic interventions to improve the entire system?
Although it can be applied to a single protected area, RAPPAM is not designed to provide detailed, site-level adaptive management guidance to protected area managers. Also, as a rapid assessment tool, it does not provide detailed information about conservation outcomes. Other site-level specific tools are available in the conservation literature.
RAPPAM has been designed to be consistent with the WCPA Framework (see Table 10).
Table 10. Elements of the RAPPAM questionnaire which fit with the IUCN-WCPA Framework
There are five steps in the RAPPAM process:
Determine the scope of the assessment;
Assess existing information for each protected area;
Administer the RAPPAM questionnaire;
Analyse the findings;
Identify next steps and recommendations.
In general the most thorough and effective approach to implementing this methodology is to hold an interactive workshop or series of workshops in which protected area managers, policy makers, and other stakeholders participate fully in evaluating the protected areas, analysing the results and identifying subsequent next steps and priorities.
RAPPAM workshops usually take three days. Two-day workshops have been held, but in these cases the agenda has been very tight with little time available for group and plenary discussions. The costs depend largely on where the workshop is held. Where possible it is advisable to hold the workshop inside a protected area as many of the discussion points during the workshop will be represented right outside the door. However, these logistics are usually the choice of the government Ministry (or other protected area authority), who will be the lead player in the workshop.
Getting the right participants to the workshop is critical – and the broader the stakeholder group present, the more accurate the results. It is important to have at least the manager of each park present at the workshop, as well as top-level participation from the appropriate government ministry. If deemed appropriate, donors can be invited, in the hope that they engage in helping with follow-up steps, as can other international and local NGOs present in the country or region. This helps build support for implementing recommendations that stem from the workshop. Other stakeholders such as community representatives, tourism operators and university staff strengthen the results. And even if in the end, there is disagreement between park staff and community members for example, points raised by the community can still be reflected in the RAPPAM report and taken into consideration.
RAPPAM has been used in a diverse range of countries with different scopes. It has been employed in a number of different ways, using a mix of approaches. The following case studies illustrate the methodology's flexibility and outline how it has been used in three very different situations. The cases of South Africa and Brazil illustrate the use of RAPPAM for assessing state and provincial-level systems of protected areas, made up of sites classified under different IUCN categories. The case of Papua New Guinea illustrates the application of the method for a country-wide assessment, in a protected area system that is largely based within community-owned sites.
KwaZulu Natal (KZN) Province of South Africa was one of the first full assessments using RAPPAM, and remains to date one of the most thorough. The purpose of the evaluation was to give a broad perspective and guidance to KZN Wildlife, the body responsible for the conservation of biodiversity in the province, as to problems and priorities with respect to protected area management. The 110 protected areas of the province, ranging in size from 5ha to over 50,000ha, and covering a wide spectrum of IUCN categories, were included in the assessment.
Process: After the scope of the assessment had been decided, and prior to the implementation of the questionnaire, KZN Parks & Wildlife staff were requested to gather all appropriate biological and management information and have it available for a series of project workshops. The RAPPAM questionnaire was then applied at six interactive workshops. They were organized in such a way that all relevant staff from a particular sub-region participated. This included the regional head, the sub-region head or chief conservator, protected area managers, and the district and community conservation officers.
After the first round of workshops had taken place and preliminary analysis of the data undertaken, a further set of meetings with senior staff from each region took place. These meetings were aimed at giving decision-making staff initial exposure to the evaluation results, and at gauging the usefulness of the outcomes in terms of the likely impact on decision making. After the data were fully analysed and preliminary recommendations developed, these were presented to the organization's Biodiversity Forum for discussion and adoption.
Results: Among the findings and recommendations, analysis of pressures and threats revealed that budget for the traditional management activity of poaching control far outweighed the funds available for the much more pervasive and damaging threat of invasive alien plants. So, as a direct result of the RAPPAM exercise, resource allocation procedures were reviewed and adapted to reflect a more systematic prioritization process, using the methodology.
RAPPAM Workshop in PNG © Liza Higgins-Zogib
In 2004 the São Paulo Forestry Institute, the Forestry Foundation of São Paulo and WWF-Brazil led a RAPPAM assessment of 772,696ha in the 32 protected areas of São Paulo State. The State includes the largest remnants of the highly endangered Atlantic Forest in Brazil, and an evaluation of the management effectiveness of the state-level protected areas was seen to be both timely and necessary, particularly because the great majority of protected areas in São Paulo are under the management of the state and not of the federal government of Brazil.
The objective of the RAPPAM exercise was to gauge the effectiveness of the system of protected areas in the state, discuss issues of representation, and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of three specific areas: management, protection and finance.
Process: First, the RAPPAM questionnaire was adapted to local circumstances through a number of participatory workshops involving protected area managers, staff and representatives of advisory or consultative councils and partner institutions. This was followed by several regional workshops where initial data was collected and a more general workshop in São Paulo to gather system-level data. Smaller-scale workshops were held to encourage active participation. The regional workshops were held over two days, the first to fill in the questionnaire, and the second to review, adjust and allow for comparison and clarification.
Results: After the data were collected, the findings were analysed and some concrete next steps and recommendations were identified.
The level of participation during this process was a particular highlight and led to engagement and commitment to a clear set of very tangible, time-bound recommendations, each assigned to the appropriate agency or department. The identification of some key representation gaps and how they will be filled, the establishment of a strong communications outreach programme, and the implementation of a number of sustained income-generating activities, including payment for environmental services, illustrate some of the key recommendations.
The overall goal of a RAPPAM assessment carried out in Papua New Guinea (PNG) between 2003 and 2005 was to review and improve the management effectiveness of the protected area system. Because of the nature of the country, this was a very different (and relatively lengthy) assessment process. Some more specific objectives were set for individual protected areas and the system as a whole:
Individual protected areas:
understand whether individual protected areas are achieving their conservation goals and are supported by landholding communities;
identify threats and pressures to individual protected areas and across the system;
consider how effectively protected areas contribute to the livelihoods and aspirations of communities; and
make recommendations for improving on-the-ground management in protected areas.
Protected area system:
review the strengths and weaknesses of government and NGO support to PAs;
understand which approaches and tools are effective in helping communities to manage their natural resources;
explore mechanisms to reduce conflict between protected areas and other land uses;
examine how best to apply the resources and skills of government and non-government agencies to strengthen the protected area system; and
recommend steps to improve protected area policy and practice.
Process: PNG has more than 800 languages, immense cultural diversity and a system of customary tenure, resulting in the RAPPAM exercise being carried out in an entirely different manner to the other case studies discussed.
To address these differences, a team made up of WWF, The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), PNG Forest Authority, Research and Conservation Foundation, The Village Development Trust, The Nature Conservancy, and Conservation International, together:
collected primary data;
added questions relevant for PNG on livelihoods, traditional management systems, community entry, and community management;
conducted simplified questionnaires in the village using visual (PRA) methods;
worked with groups of villagers and local officials; and
approached the assessment as a learning experience for protected area communities.
Each of the 51 protected areas was visited by a RAPPAM team. Many of the areas had not been visited by the government or NGOs for over a decade. Some communities visited did not even know that their land was a protected area! The RAPPAM visits were therefore useful in their own right.
Results: Results of the RAPPAM process and final workshop included:
Review of the strengths and weaknesses of protected area management in PNG;
Analysis of main pressures and threats to the PNG protected area system;
A “Rescue Strategy” including concrete recommendations and next steps for further improvements (protected area management policy, objectives, practices and resource allocation);
Updated database and protected area register of the status and management of individual PAs; and
Mapping of individual protected areas and the protected area system.
The RAPPAM assessment has provided a sound platform from which to make a meaningful difference to the level of management of PNG's conservation areas. Moreover the other half of the island (Papua, Indonesia) has also undertaken a RAPPAM exercise and results will be consolidated and used to formulate a strategy for the whole island of New Guinea, home to Asia's biggest and most diverse rainforest.
Ensure the government protected area authority leads the assessment process: The implementation of a system-wide assessment such as RAPPAM is a fundamental function to be performed by the management agency. NGOs can help with some funding and technical assistance, but the protected area authority must be fully in charge of the assessment process, as it is the one ultimately responsible for implementing the recommendations and improving the system.
Develop partnerships with other NGOs present in the country or region: In most cases, RAPPAM has been implemented in partnership with other organizations. The Indonesian assessment is a case in point. The Government of Indonesia, WWF, The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, Wildlife Conservation Society, The Natural Resources Management III, Wetlands International Indonesia, BirdLife Indonesia, and Fauna and Flora Indonesia all came together for the RAPPAM assessment. Such collaboration is helpful for developing commitments for implementing the agreed assessment priority recommendations.
Choose a useful assessment scope: RAPPAM is seen at its best when a larger number of protected areas are included in the assessment. The assessment scope should be carefully thought out. If there are too many protected areas in a country or region to assess all of them, the assessment can choose to just include specific IUCN protected area management categories or priority regions. For example, in Malaysia limited resources meant that the RAPPAM assessment was only carried out for IUCN Category II protected areas.
Administer the questionnaire through interactive workshops: This has been the case in most countries with PNG being a notable exception because of the diverse cultural situation and customary tenure regime. Simply getting all of the protected area managers together with decision-makers, NGOs and other stakeholders to discuss management issues, identify the threats to protected areas, and agree on key recommendations has proved to be very useful. In addition to valuing of the opinion of those closest to the field (managers, rangers, etc), such workshops serve the purpose of building capacity among field staff about the technical and managerial issues that are most relevant to protected area management. Finally, it also builds an agreed vision among field and headquarters-based staff and partners about the key priorities to work jointly on.
Think carefully about assessment objectives and adapt the method to local needs: Decision makers and protected area managers must see the usefulness and necessity of such an evaluation. The assessment objectives need to be thought out, discussed and agreed at the senior level within protected area management authorities. A review of other existing methods and an adaptation of RAPPAM to address specific issues that are relevant locally need to be made. For this purpose, the constitution of a “RAPPAM Working Group” with representatives from the government, key NGOs, and other stakeholders has proven to be most useful for defining and clarifying objectives, defining the scope, and agreeing on methodological adaptations.
Launch the report at an event if possible: Announcing the key findings and recommendations of the assessment at a high-level public event should be planned ahead. It can help in three ways to: 1. raise the profile of the protected area system among key target audiences (e.g., members of parliament or state legislature); 2. raise awareness and generate commitments for the funding that is needed for the implementation of key recommendations (e.g., by inviting existing and potential donors to the protected area system); and 3. generate a public commitment at the governmental level for following up on the assessment.
Make clear, concrete, do-able recommendations: To ensure that the RAPPAM reports do not sit on the shelf and gather dust, the recommendations must be turned into target-oriented, time-bound action points, clearly assigned to the appropriate parties. A key recommendation is that such assessments are carried out periodically (each 4–5 years), and become an integral part of the business process of the protected area management authority.
Ensure participation and engagement of local communities and other relevant stakeholders in assessments, but plan carefully for their input: While in an ideal world local communities would participate in RAPPAM assessment workshops as stakeholders with an equal input, the experience shows a mixed review. There are no fixed formulas for ensuring other stakeholders' participation. Experience has shown that garnering their input at the preparatory, regional workshops is more effective than attempting to do so at a national-level workshop setting.
63The RAPPAM methodology was developed for WWF by Dr Jamison Ervin.