The first version of this document was published in 2000. At that stage, although the IUCN-WCPA Management Effectiveness Evaluation Framework had been developed over several years, it had only been field tested in a few countries. The whole concept of assessing management effectiveness of protected areas was still in its infancy. The need for methodologies to assess protected areas had been discussed by protected area practitioners for several years, but only a handful of systems had been field-tested and implemented, and there was little commitment to management effectiveness beyond a few enlightened individuals in non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and parks agencies. There was also, in consequence, little evidence of the suitability of particular methodologies to meet the needs of the vast array of different types of protected area, and little experience in implementing the findings of assessments to achieve the aim of the whole exercise: more effective conservation.
Six years later, the situation is very different. Management effectiveness evaluation is a term now well recognised in the lexicon of protected area management. Many different assessment methodologies have emerged, most of them developed using the Framework agreed by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and its World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), and the number of individual protected areas that have undergone some form of evaluation has risen from a few hundred to many thousand.
Clearly, not all of this progress can be linked to the publication of the Framework, but the fact that IUCN-WCPA could agree on a basic approach has undoubtedly had an enormous influence on the way that assessment systems have developed. Perhaps even more importantly in the long term, the process of developing the Framework also helped to link practitioners involved in management effectiveness, who have continued to work together, sharing expertise and lessons learned, collaborating, arguing, swapping ideas and providing a supportive framework for learning. Together, the development of basic structures of assessment and these informal partnerships have provided much of the impetus for the rapid development of protected area assessment. It has also been a lot of fun.
In the conclusions to the first edition of the Framework we noted that success in applying assessments and in integrating monitoring and evaluation into everyday protected area management required progress on three major issues: awareness, willingness and capacity.
The issue of awareness certainly seems less of a problem now than it did in 2000. Evaluation of effectiveness is now recognised as being a critical step in successful management by a growing number of protected area agencies and their government departments. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and UNESCO's World Heritage Centre have both placed a priority on evaluation and are setting concrete targets for member states. Donor agencies, including The World Bank and the Global Environment Facility (GEF), are requiring that any protected areas they help to support must conduct assessments as a regular feature of the project cycle.
Meeting in Chitwan buffer zone © Sue Stolton
There is also more willingness to assess than we originally anticipated, although with some important caveats. A growing number of governments is promoting assessments and publishing the results, sometimes very publicly through press conferences, published documents and dedicated websites. Other stakeholders often welcome the chance to have a say about protected areas when assessments are participatory. However, to date these exercises have tended to involve the stronger protected area agencies and the enthusiasm to publish results is likely to diminish if the message is less encouraging. Agencies are understandably worried about publicising critical evaluations. The very success of assessments is also creating a danger of cynicism amongst staff if they are expected to complete different assessments for different donors. Some efforts at rationalization are needed.
Capacity remains an issue, sometimes in ways that we had not anticipated. Fears remain about the costs of assessments, in terms of time and money, particularly during a period when resources are generally becoming scarcer. Conversely, some agencies have found that shortage of staff and funds increases the need for assessments, to ensure that available resources are used as efficiently as possible. Such strategic actions often play out well with donors and with government treasuries. However, there are also issues of capacity in terms of the ability of staff members to implement and, probably more commonly, draw maximum benefits from an assessment; there is a large difference between simply assembling data and then going on to interpret it in terms of how to make changes to management. We have become convinced that successful implementation usually needs good training materials and support. Some proposals for capacity development are included in this edition.
We have also learned a lot since 2000; hence the justification for the new edition, which we hope is rooted more in real experience than in theory and hopes. The basic Framework remains unchanged, but we have expanded some sections where we now know more (for instance regarding monitoring outcomes and how to go about implementation). All the case studies are new or completely rewritten and more directly indicate how the Framework has been used to develop a variety of evaluation systems. We have expanded the team of authors to make sure that some of these new aspects are adequately covered. As always, this process remains incomplete; we therefore encourage anyone who uses this Guideline to let us know what works and what does not work, and to make suggestions for improvements in the future. Let us maintain the spirit of cooperation and mutual support that have made working in this field such a pleasure.