by Sue Stolton, Equilibrium, José Courrau, University of Queensland and Moses Mapesa, Uganda Wildlife Authority
Community meeting to discuss assessment of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park © Marc Hockings
The UNESCO/IUCN Enhancing our Heritage (EoH) project, funded by the United Nations Foundation, is aiming to improve monitoring and evaluation in natural World Heritage sites. The project team, from Europe and Latin America and managed by the University of Queensland, Australia, is working with staff and partners in nine pilot World Heritage sites in Africa (Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda; Serengeti National Park, Tanzania and Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles), Asia (Keoladeo National Park, India; Kaziranga National Park, India and Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal) and Latin America (Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve, Honduras; Sangay National Park, Ecuador and Canaima National Park, Venezuela) to develop and test management assessment methods.
Natural World Heritage sites protect areas of ‘outstanding universal values’ for science, conservation or natural beauty. Given this significance, it is critical that managers have the information and support systems needed to manage sites effectively, and that the global community has the confidence that their values are being maintained. World Heritage signatory States have already implemented a ‘World Heritage in Danger’ list, reactive monitoring missions and requirements for periodic reporting by State Parties. But these ‘external’ mechanisms, however valuable, cannot replace the need for regular monitoring and assessment by managers themselves.
Rather than impose one top-down system for the assessment of World Heritage sites, the EoH project is developing and testing a toolkit of methodologies, detailed in the World Heritage Management Effectiveness Workbook,69 which will help managers and stakeholders assess current activities, identify gaps and discuss how problems might be addressed. The WCPA Framework is the unifying theme around which the Workbook is structured. Indicators and tools for assessing each component of the Framework are suggested to build up a picture of the adequacy and appropriateness of management and the extent to which objectives are being achieved.
The workbook includes 11 tools (Table 11) which are based on a variety of best practices in protected area, and in particular World Heritage, assessment. Many of the tools draw from the experiences in Fraser Island World Heritage site, Australia and from a joint WWF and IUCN project to develop assessment methods in Central Africa, in particular at the Dja World Heritage site, Cameroon. The tools for identifying objectives are based on those developed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) for use in the USA and Central and South America. The threat assessment also draws on work by TNC and the Biodiversity Support Program. The methodology developed for assessing outcomes was inspired by existing systems used by Parks Canada, TNC and Kruger National Park in South Africa.
Table 11. EoH Workbook Methodologies
The workbook is designed for use in all natural World Heritage sites, and can be adapted to suit the needs of all protected areas. Like other protected areas, World Heritage sites vary greatly in their objectives, management approach, resources, and capacity for assessment and monitoring. Many of the tools are thus very general and need to be adapted to suit a site's own needs and realities. The assessment tools can be used either to supplement existing assessment activities through helping to ensure all components of the Framework are assessed; as a point of reference to develop new tools that fit special conditions; or to build a complete assessment system from the start.
The EoH project is aiding sites, both with technical expertise and financial assistance, to complete an initial assessment of the management effectiveness (in year one of the project) and a second assessment (in year four). The initial assessment is used to gain baseline data on the current situation at the site. Information can also be used to develop additional monitoring and assessment systems and to formulate small-scale responses or larger-scale proposals for areas where adaptations to management have been identified (for instance additional staff training or equipment needs). The initial assessment was also used to test the various methodologies developed to assess the elements of the IUCN-WCPA Framework. Following feedback from the sites, the workbook has been revised and, hopefully, improved.
The main project steps for each site are illustrated in Figure 11.
Figure 11. Enhancing our Heritage: assessment and evaluation methodology
By the end of the project, it is hoped that the pilot sites will have:
established assessment, monitoring and reporting programmes for assessing management effectiveness and the state of conservation of World Heritage values;
site managers and others trained in the application of assessment and monitoring techniques;
integration of assessment and monitoring into management practices;
established or improved communication and co-operation between site managers, local communities and NGOs, research organizations, regional training institutions and other key experts and stakeholders, which will provide a solid basis for the continuation of assessment and monitoring beyond the life of the project;
improved management in areas of identified deficiency (this can be achieved through training programmes and small-scale support provided through the project); and
project proposals prepared and funding sought for large-scale projects required to address identified deficiencies.
The EoH project has two major aims:
to establish and integrate assessment, monitoring and reporting programmes; and
to implement the findings of assessments by providing support for training, small-scale interventions and if possible assistance in preparing and funding large-scale projects.
The first aim is the most challenging and for most sites means changes in management culture and practice. Such changes are not always easy to make. Success is generally dependent on the understanding by managers and management agency staff of the benefits of monitoring and assessment, and the capacity within the World Heritage site to institute change. The project has found that one of the best ways to develop new systems and approaches to monitoring and assessment in sites is to work with managers and staff during periods of management review, for instance during the development or revision of a general management plan. It is also important, if possible, to institutionalize monitoring and assessments at the agency level. In several countries, the development of monitoring and assessment at one pilot site has led to plans to institute assessments across the national protected area network.
One positive sign of the sites' willingness to assess management effectiveness is that, while the project design provided for completion of two assessments (at the start and end of project), most sites have completed, or plan to complete, additional voluntary assessments at the project mid-point. One reason for this was that many sites were unable to complete assessments of all WCPA Framework elements during the initial assessment because of lack of information or capacity to gather information. These additional assessments also provide an indicator of the long-term sustainability of assessments at the project sites.
However, there has been mixed success in integrating the results of assessment and resulting adaptive management with management planning; reinforcing the underlying need to ensure that sites are both willing and able to undertake the implementation of this type of monitoring and assessment.
Funding is also important. The project has provided each site with approximately US$30,000 per year for four years to undertake the assessment and develop effective assessment processes and monitoring systems. The funding is deliberately fairly low to encourage sites to either self-fund or find small amounts of additional funding to continue the assessment process once the project has been completed.
To date some clear lessons can be drawn from the processes of introducing the assessment of management effectiveness at the nine World Heritage sites. These can be grouped around four main themes, which are discussed in more detail below:
Working in partnership
Effective management systems
Developing clear management targets
Increasing site knowledge
The underlying premise of the EoH Project is that World Heritage sites undertake assessment of their own management effectiveness. For the self-assessment process to be rigorous it is essential that site managers assemble a team of stakeholder representatives to work with them to develop and support the monitoring and assessment process. Such partnerships are also important to avoid overlapping of activities by different stakeholders and thus maximize the use of their resources. Although all the sites were already engaged in some form of stakeholder dialogue, in most cases this tended to be a one-way conversation used to provide or elicit information rather than working with stakeholders to share information and opinions and ensure effective site management. The project requirement for site implementation teams to undertake the project, who then work with a wider group of stakeholders to develop and ratify the initial assessment, has reinforced this need to build strong and coherent local teams to work together to assess management. In some instances it is clear from the initial assessment reports that opportunities for stakeholder input need to be strengthened. There remains a strong tendency for reports produced solely or largely by managers to present a ‘positive’ view of management, with limited external input.
Two examples from Latin America highlight the importance of partnerships. In Canaima National Park, Venezuela, the project has been perceived as an opportunity to combine the separate efforts of civil society, government, local governments and Indigenous groups. The local team, which includes civil society, the private sector, government (local and national), Indigenous groups and the National Guard within a park, has demonstrated capacity and commitment to implement the project. The people involved quickly identified themselves as a team and have ensured that all stakeholders involved in the project are actively engaged in project implementation. However, at the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve in Honduras it became clear during the introductory and planning workshop that those involved in the reserve had little experience of working together as a team. It is also evident that unsolved issues between the various organizations have affected the implementation of the initial assessment. In particular, the participation of stakeholders and the integration of existing information monitoring and assessment has been limited.
It is difficult to manage effectively without basic business management systems. The initial assessment of management resulted in recommendations developed for three different levels of response:
straightforward changes in management practices; followed by
small-scale projects that could enhance capacity; and only then
larger-scale projects to address major management issues.
The project has helped in developing some basic management structures for pilot sites. For example, Aldabra Atoll in the Seychelles is managed by the Seychelles Island Foundation (SIF), with headquarters on Mahé 1,000km from Aldabra. Developing a more strategic and planned management structure has been identified as an important step forward for SIF and Aldabra. Following the initial assessment, the EoH project has contributed to improving the implementation of the management plan (and in 2006 will assist in the revision of the plan), to developing SIF's organizational strategies and systems, both at Aldabra and SIF Headquarters, and to researching sustainable financing options for the management of the Atoll. Specific outputs have been the training of SIF staff in budget preparation and, through a partnership with Shell Foundation and Shell International, the development of business planning skills.
Ground truthing satellite imagery, a possible tool for monitoring in Keoladeo National Park © Sue Stolton
The first step in the assessment of management effectiveness is to define site values and associated management objectives. These values include the key attributes that underlie nomination as a World Heritage site. For sites important to biodiversity, these values should ideally reflect not only unique or threatened/endangered species or ecosystems, but all the biological diversity (including terrestrial, freshwater and marine diversity) to ensure sustained ecological function. Site values however should also reflect other natural values such as geological or representative ecological processes, as well as any cultural or social values that are locally, nationally or globally important to stakeholders. It proved a challenge to agree on management objectives, in several of the pilot sites, particularly for the areas that did not have agreed or effective management plans.
Sangay National Park in Ecuador protects a spectrum of ecosystems, from tropical rainforests to glaciers, in the Eastern Cordillera region of the Andes. Its isolation provides protection to indigenous species, such as the mountain tapir, spectacled bear and the Andean condor. Management of the site has tended to be species-orientated despite the size and variety of the site. The EoH project has worked with managers of the park and stakeholders to identify park values and management targets, which can then provide the focus for assessment, planning and management of the park in the future. The management plan for the park has already been revised to take account of this new understanding of park values and objectives. Over the next few years EoH will help to develop monitoring (to determine baseline data) and management strategies for this broader vision of site values.
There is an on-going need to collect data and develop, expand or refine monitoring systems to assess the overall condition of the site and to ensure that site management is leading to the expected conservation outcomes. For World Heritage sites in particular, the implementation of the World Heritage Convention requires regular reporting on the conservation status of the nominated World Heritage values. The assessment of outcomes, i.e. whether management is actually protecting the unique values for which the site was designated, is therefore clearly a crucial element of any assessment of management effectiveness, but is also the most difficult to measure.
The EoH methodology for outcome assessment is based on the setting of clear management objectives and assessment of threats, with an associated set of indicators to measure the status of these objectives and threats (which can be measured against a set of agreed thresholds). Regular monitoring of indicators then enables the assessment of objectives and threats and highlights any changes required in management activities or priorities. Effective research and monitoring are thus critical for outcome assessment. Even in sites which have been the subject of years of research, the project's approach to systematic assessment of management effectiveness and, in particular the assessment of outcomes, has highlighted serious gaps in the knowledge base and monitoring activities.
Bwindi Impenetrable National Park is managed by the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) primarily to conserve its mountain forests and associated wildlife, including mountain gorillas. Gorilla-based tourism provides a major source of income for Bwindi, UWA and the local population. However, the park management and Bwindi-based Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation recognise the need for knowledge and assessment of a far wider range of species and interactions. The EoH project has thus provided funds to help update vegetation maps; assess endemic species, especially lesser known plants and animals; research the sustainability of local non-timber forest product harvesting and assess systems that monitor such harvesting; and evaluate methods for minimizing crop raiding by wild animals, including the research and testing of new methods and deterrents.
Serengeti National Park in Tanzania is justifiably world famous for protecting vast herds of migrating animals and associated biodiversity and has been the subject of considerable research and monitoring efforts over the last fifty years. However, the first assessment of the eight conservation targets and associated key ecological attributes, developed by Serengeti management staff and researchers as a focus for the management of the Serengeti ecosystem, found considerable gaps in information. This made a full assessment impossible. The EoH project is therefore working with the Park's ecologist to develop base-line data and monitoring programmes to measure indicators related to population pressure and extent of cultivation near migratory routes, fire patterns and extent of dry season fires, forest extent and cover, and the threat of human disturbance to rhino population.
Monitoring lion populations in Serengeti National Park © Nigel Dudley
Bwindi Impenetrable National Park
Moses Mapesa, Director, Uganda Wildlife Authority
The process provided an opportunity for in-house evaluation and evaluation by partners (outsiders) moreover at a relatively low monetary cost. The process of assessment specifically made us aware of the following:
In-house staff have tremendous potential to take on various roles at relatively low costs. They are able to comprehend the system of assessment and undertake it once given a few tips.
The process provides an opportunity to review management values, objectives, approaches and targets and allows for a re-focus of efforts on critical areas.
The process can also be used for evaluation of individual staff efforts more positively. Many times staff are scared of evaluations and will even tell lies because they fear for jobs. But when they undertake the evaluation themselves, they have to be honest especially when they know that it will not result in victimization.
The partners, especially the community members and leaders who have often been very critical of management (and sometimes antagonistic), were very supportive and objective during the assessment because the process allows them to get more informed about management and the interventions including the constraints and challenges and are now able to give their assessment from an informed standpoint.
Fortunately for Bwindi, the partners had already been involved in the planning process. The evaluation therefore provided a participatory feed-back mechanism, moreover with field visits as opposed to just written reports some of which find some officers too busy to study them.
Compared to an external evaluation by a team of experts, this process is quite cheap, affordable and practical. In any case external evaluation reports are sometimes rejected or explained away by management and even some of the good recommendations are not taken on. On the other hand external evaluations still rely on the same people (staff and partners) and simply compile a report to their credit and the staff feel cheated.
The process brings together all stakeholders in the management of the site and allows for a second opportunity after joint annual operations planning to review who has done what and ensure complementarity and avoid duplication.