UNEP WCMC 2 " | Reporting on progress on protected areas management effectiveness Discussion Document for a long term plan for collecting and reporting on progress on protected areas management effectiveness and building capacity for national and regional evaluations December 2008 SSeS Reporting on progress on protected areas management effectiveness Discussion Document Prepared for the consultancy agreement between UNEP-WCMC and WWF International. This document was written by Helena Pavese, in collaboration with Neil Burgess, from WWF US. For further information please contact: Helena Pavese Protected Areas Programme UNEP-WCMC 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge, CB3 ODL E-mail: helena.pavese@unep-wemc.org December 2008 The United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is the biodiversity assessment and policy implementation arm of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world's foremost intergovernmental environmental organization. The centre has been in operation since 1989, combining scientific research with practical policy advice. UNEP-WCWMC provides objective, scientifically rigorous products and services to help decision makers recognize the value of biodiversity and apply this knowledge to all that they do. Its core business is managing data about ecosystems and biodiversity, interpreting and analysing that data to provide assessments and policy analysis, and making the results available to international decision-makers and businesses. Disclaimer: The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP-WCMC, other contributory organisations and the supporting institutions. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP-WCMC, other contributory organisations and the supporting institutions concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Citation: Pavese, H.B. and Burgess, N. (2008) Reporting on progress on Protected Areas Management Effectiveness. Discussion document prepared for the consultancy agreement UNEP-WCMC and the WWF International. Cambridge, UK. Contents Reporting on progress on protected areas management effectiveness ..............-. 5 Part | — Long term collection, update and management of the Protected Areas Management Effectiveness data ..............::cceccccessceessecseceeseeesseecnseeenseeeneeeneeneerses 6 The Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Database ...............::::cee 6 (GTUTIETTLESIITUTCTUTIC cencdenoceoconodasconceoosaaseecedatassasecccasdcoeaa a onadac be eeer BaaerBeaT aa sasa0ce 6 Updating and managing the PAME database. ...............ccceeseeeseeeseeeseeneee 7 Optimising the data update and management Process ..............:ceeeeeees 9 The Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Website.................:c:cccee 12 Part Il - Making the PAME data available within the World Database on Protected AneaSslmMenPANESINGICALONS seceee cece oeceseeteeceeeeere ates tere seee ceo scnccs-sncessocnscoventers 13 [Huntire%e [UT 1101} cacsonoosduosesesnoneicbeccaocooasossecedaTasacicoa.cs 00 0s04006- Hae NOOBS SEE Re eae ER Eao See 13 Developing the PAME management effectiveness indicators ..............:0:008 14 Calculating WDPA ME indicator SCOreS: ..............:ceesccceeeseceessseeeeseeeeseeeeseeeens 16 Incorporating the PAME Indicators into the WDPA: The next steps. .............. 18 Part Ill — Reporting on Protected Areas Management Effectiveness .................. 19 Analysisiotithe|PAMEj data). cers .stseseccses-cosscsnssenescctesecisents-c--s00sess00asesseesoaseons 19 Part IV — Building Capacity for National and Regional Evaluations..................... 21 Attachment 1 — Overall Budget to support PAME work for 2 yearS...............008 23 Reporting on progress on protected areas management effectiveness Introduction This report proposes the main elements of a long-term sustainable plan for collecting and reporting on progress on collecting, and analysing Protected Area Management Effectiveness (PAME) data with the goal of improving the management of the worlds protected area estate. It also addresses the issue of building capacity for National and Regional evaluations of PAME. It has been produced with the contribution and financial support of WWF International. The issues addressed in this paper were identified based on the review of the targets in the CBD programme of work on protected areas, the Global Study Report on PAME, and the notes from several meetings of the PAME core team. Part |-— Long term collection, update and management of the Protected Areas Management Effectiveness data In this part of the document we outline the current ME module of the World Database of Protected Areas, and make suggestions on how it should be changed to provide a long term sustainable structure for the future. The Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Database The PAME database is a module of the WDPA that is freely available through the internet and contains data on the management effectiveness of the world’s protected areas. It operates under the principals of the conservation commons and all data submitted are made available, unless specific restrictions are put in place by the data providers. Currently only a subset of data are available for viewing online and downloading, due to capacity limitations at UNEP-WCMC and due to concerns by some data providers about making all ME data freely available over the internet. Current Structure Since February 2008 the responsibility for updating and managing the protected areas management effectiveness database was passed onto UNEP- WCMC, whose work in this project is supported by funds from the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP 2010) project, funded by the GEF. The current PAME database holds information in four different levels: system (i.e. methodology), indicators, studies (i.e. assessment), and site information, as presented on box 1. It also hosts metadata information, including contact details of the data provider. Box 1: Current structure and fields of the PAME database: Methodology * Methodology name - Short name - Other language name - Long methodology name * Organisation/Affiliation * Developer + Primary reference ¢ Primary Driver - to improve management - for accountability - for prioritization - to raise awareness Updating and managing the PAME database Indicator « System name * Question number ¢ PAME Indicator * Scale used Assessment « Assessment name * Date * Country *Methodology used *Number of Pas assessed *Report available (Y/N) * Results available (Y/N) * Number in series Site * WDPA code » PAname * Country * Designation * IUCN Category « Assessment name Since February of 2008, the PAME data has been updated manually by Helena Pavese at UNEP-WCMC. Figure 1 describes the current PAME database update and management process: Figure 1: Current PAME update and database management process Current PAME database update and management process aoDaBceseeseoos=ass556 ; UNEP-WCWC and partners identifies assessment 1 UNEP-WCNC and partners contacts data provider Data Provider submits relevant files (including methodology paper, reports, etc.). Information submitted is verified and | PAME data is extracted Data integration | Protected Areas Other Management Effectiveness (PAME) | goo “#sie coves Information module Gemma WDPA World Bank = = and GEF cs = Databases Information is manually incorporated into the PAME information module National Governmental Databases NGOs databases The process of extracting the PAME data and integrating it into the database is usually very time consuming, as the information provided often comes in different formats (excel, word, pdf, etc) and in the form of reports, which need to be carefully reviewed so that the information can be extracted. In order for the WDPA and the PAME database to be linked, the WDPA site codes need to be matched and incorporated into the PAME database. This process is done manually and is also very time consuming, as the protected areas need to be checked one by one. The following are common types of problems that need to get resolved manually: misspellings of countries, misspellings of protected areas, missing IUCN categories, etc. This all takes very long to clear up. In most cases, only basic information on the assessments, such as methodology applied, name and designation of the protected area and date of assessment is provided to UNEP-WCMC. In many cases the raw data, i.e. the results of the assessments, is not provided due to various reasons, but one of the important ones being sensitive over distributing potentially delicate data. When raw data is submitted, the process of extracting this information, incorporating it into the PAME database and translating it into the common reporting format is also done manually and is also very time consuming. As can be seen from the above, the current system of data entry into the WDPA ME module is not very satisfactory because it involves a lot of manual data processing and cleaning, before the data can be linked to the WDPA and made available to the world and for use in the development of effectiveness indicators. Optimising the data update and management process Most of the ME data that has been collected relates to only a few methodologies, such as the METT and RAPPAM tools. This data is often held by the main international conservation organisations, who collect this information from their portfolio of projects, in order to measure the success of their interventions. In order to facilitate and optimise the process of data sharing between organisations and integration into the ME module of the WDPA, a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) has been drafted that, if signed, would commit organisations holding PAME data to continue sharing these data with UNEP- WCMC over a period of 5 years for integration into the PAME module of the World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA). This MOC proposes that organisations commit specifically to: e Continue to collect and collate PAME information from their portfolio of projects; e Continue to be engaged in discussions related to the PAME work and provide their comments, suggestions and inputs when appropriate. e Share the PAME data they collect with UNEP-WCMC for integration into the central PAME database. e Incorporate the WDPA site codes into their PAME databases in order to facilitate incorporation of their organisations data into the central PAME database; e Encourage other protected area managers or supporting agencies to undertake PAME Assessments and to share their data with UNEP-WCMC to incorporate into the PAME module; e Continue supporting and promoting the PAME work in its own portfolio and across their conservation network. Establishing mandated cooperation between the major collectors of PAME data would significantly improve the process of data update and management at UNEP-WCMC as data would be provided in consolidated from a number of organisations directly to UNEP-WCMC. This would reduce the transaction costs of requesting information from every protected area management agency globally, although targeted requests would still be required. One of the key ways to facilitate the process of integrating data into the PAME database is that partner agencies integrate the WDPA site codes into their own database structure. This would allow the easy establishment of links between external databases and the WDPA, making the process of data incorporation, quick, straight forward, and cheap. Since most of organisations are now working on the development of databases to hold the PAME data they collect, it is suggested that in the longer term, an automatic mechanism (such as a webservice) is established in order to allow the data sharing between different databases. Such a mechanism reduces the need of manual interference, is not expensive, does not require high technology and has already been developed by UNEP-WCMC for other purposes. For the data generated and held by other organisations not included in this MOC, the process of data collection and integration will continue to be manual with the data being provided either via email or ftp site. The proposed long-term sustainable process of data update and management described above is presented in more details in the following diagram: saseqejep seseqejep seseqejep seseqejep yueg puom JUaWUIaA05 J8YIO SODN pue 445 feuonen pepi0de. ere =6jessByep UONEWJIOJU! FWY 84) O}u! pay Aj/BoJewojyne winwijuiw ey) pue S$} UONBWJOJU! 84) pue aseqelep FW Wd eyep mel yjog 94} 0} Spjalj UOWIWUOD ay} AjUO Sj9a/aS 4A}/14 popiooes sioleolpul AWWe sl yes eyep ajnpow UOHeWOjU] wnuwiulw ey) uo (AW Wd) sseuanoeyj3 uoleuuojul AJUO uonesBejul Beg juowebeueyy SPAlY P2}D9}01d esynsas ey} JO asn ay} uO suoNdujses Aue asey) ay “payejnoyeo ease SIOJeSIPUI JWWd 84} 10} S8s09s ay} pue yew0) Buryodas uowWWwod ojUu! payejsues} s! eyeG pajoesjxe 9q ued eyep pue Pamalnai Ss! papiAoid UONeWUOJU] ay} 40} 00} uONe}sUeL) au) sjdepe OWOM-daNn “(o]8 “soda ‘eded ABojopoyjaw Buipnjoul) sajiy JUBAIIAJ SWANS JBPIAOd BYeQ UONBWWOJUL wajsAs }IWGNs JapIAdd BJeQ Japiaoid eyep joeju0o wajsfs umouy ssauyed pue OWOM-dSNN wajsks Flin K éwajsks ja UMOUYUN UB SIY} S} juawssasseAluap! 4 siaued pue OWOM-dSNN syinsay uojeuojul sjuauissassy JiNVd sajis pue saipnjs ‘walshs Fd The Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Website The PAME website was developed to share with the conservation community information on the existing management effectiveness methodologies and assessments, as well as to provide instructions on how users can contribute to the update of the PAME database. This website was developed with funds from the Federal Ministry for the Environment of the German Government and was launched at the second meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Protected Areas in February 2008. \t has been updated in November 2008 so that it is fully linked to the new WDPA website www.wdpa.org/me and shares the same design features. Since its launch, the PAME website has helped UNEP-WCWMC to collect significant amount of new data on PAME and has also received many comments and suggestions for improvement. It has proved to be a powerful tool for disseminating and sharing PAME information worldwide. In addition to the current features, the website could be improved further providing users with: > A forum for discussions on PAME experiences and lessons learned; > Access to other PAME databases; > Aspace where information about events can available and regularly updated, amongst others. In order to develop these additional features and to ensure the long-term update and maintenance of this website, further funding is required to support UNEP-WCMC's staff time and the infrastructure necessary to undertake this work. A detailed budget for a period of two years is presented in attachment 1. Part Il - Making the PAME data available within the World Database on Protected areas: The PAME indicators Introduction Management effectiveness of protected areas is an important indicator of how well protected areas are conserving biodiversity. This is critical as most nations use protected areas as a cornerstone of biodiversity conservation, but to know whether this is a successful strategy we need to Know not only about the area and systems they cover, but also whether they are effectively managed. A framework for evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas has been developed and promulgated by IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) (Hockings et al. 2006’). This framework has been used to develop methodologies and assess effectiveness in several thousand protected areas throughout the world, and some comparative studies have been conducted on this data. Although significant progress has been done at the national level, no mechanism have been developed yet to track trends and progress on protected areas management effectiveness at regional and global levels. The only information available up to date at global level can be found within the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), but it only covers whether the protected area has been assessed in terms of management effectiveness, with no indication of the /evel of effectiveness. Although the present set of information is useful to track general progress of countries in undertaking management effectiveness evaluations, it does not allow UNEP-WCMC, or other database users to assess details of whether protected areas are being effectively managed or not and what the strengths and weakness in their management are. In this light, there is a need for developing a simple set of PAME indicators linked to the existing PAME tools, and associated to the WDPA which would enable UNEP-WCMCG, IUCN and the many partners involved in this project to have a better picture on the management status of a protected area and to track how it is evolving over time. In order to address this need, UNEP-WCMC, the University of Queensland and other partners have worked together over the past few years on the development of management effectiveness indicators, which would provide a very brief summary of effectiveness in different dimensions of protected area management. 1 Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N., Leverington, F. and Courrau, J. (2006) ‘Evaluating effectiveness: a framework for assessing the management of protected areas. Second edition.’ (IUCN: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK) This work has received inputs and significant contribution of many people involved on PAME assessments and was undertaken as part of the Biodiversity indicators Partnership Project (BIP 2010). The BIP 2010 funded by the GEF and managed by UNEP-WCMC, aims to bring together a suite of biodiversity indicators, allowing for a more comprehensive and consistent monitoring and assessment of global biodiversity, with a view to measuring progress towards the CBD's target to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. The Partnership will coordinate and support the regular delivery of biodiversity indicators into a range of decision-making processes, with a particular focus on this 2010 target. This section aims to introduce the proposed Protected Area Management Effectiveness Indicators. Once finalised, these indicators will be incorporated into the World Database on Protected Areas so that trends and progress on the world's protected areas management effectiveness can be tracked over time and across regions. Developing the PAME management effectiveness indicators The PAME Global Study managed through the IUCN WCPA has developed a common reporting format (CRF) based on the review of over 2000 indicators used by the more than 40 different protected areas management effectiveness evaluation tools. The CRF is composed of 45 headline indicators, which intended to: > represent most of the indicators found in any MEE methodology; > provide a platform for cross-analysis of results from MEE studies using different methodologies, while maintaining as much information as possible; > be flexible, with the potential to add more ‘headline indicators’ in the future. Although the Common Reporting Format can be very useful for undertaking analysis and comparisons, linking its 45 indicators to the WDPA does not seem very practical. In order to facilitate the integration of PAME data into the WDPA and to ensure that the information available is simple and easily understood, the UNEP-WCMC and University of Queensland have developed a set of 14 Protected Area Management Effectiveness Indicators, which are presented on table 1 below. The WDPA ME Indicators were developed by “rolling-up” indicators from the common reporting format and while of course maintaining continuity with the IUCN-WCPA Framework for Management Effectiveness Evaluation Framework elements. This Framework has been well accepted around the world and by the international protected areas community, is referenced in the CBD Program of Work on Protected Areas and is the basis for most of the evaluation systems being applied widely around the world today. Table 1: Proposed WDPA ME indicators (in blue) and their respective WCPA Framework Elements, Minimum foe WEPA “Comair ee : ing aa Sones Minimum Data Component ‘headline indicat rs Five important values Level of significance Five important threats ie Level of extent and severity of threats 1.Value and significance Values and significance 1. Context Trend of threats constrain or support by external political and civil environment Main constraining factors of external political and civil environment Park | curi Legal status / land tenure gazetts and jenure secunly : a Adequacy of legislation Suolte designand Marking and security/ fencing of park 2. Planning eouniement Boundary demarcation boundaries PA site design Appropriateness of design Management plan and Management plan biodiversity objectives Staffing —~—~——_—« [Adequacy of staff numbers Funding Adequacy of current funding 5. Management resources Security/ reliability of funding 2. Threats and constraints Enabling environment 4. Management Planning 3. Input ; c Infrastructure/equipment oe eES) GU UALER EE NTS, equipment and facilities Adequacy of relevant and available information for management Effectiveness of administration including financial management Effectiveness of governance and leadership Management effectiveness evaluation undertaken Eon im ahh Model of governance . Internal manage! 5 — systems and nmcosees inrarrictraleqn Pett igi eeeas es, pee Adequacy of hr policies and procedures Adequacy of staff training Staff morale Staff/ other management partners skill level Adequacy of law enforcement capacity List (up to) five main issues for law enforcement Appropriate program of community benefit/ assistance 9. Stakeholder relations Stakeholder relations Communication program Involvement of communities and stakeholders 6. Information base Information/ inventory Governance and capacity (includes financial management) 4. Process Staffing — process 8. Law enforcement Law enforcement 15 WCPA a oe ; 1 Framework WDPA ME indicator Minimum Data Component Sovran foe wae ay ‘headline indicators’ Element 2 List community benefit/ assistance program Character of visitor facilities and services 10. Visitor management Visitor management Level of visitor use Visitors catered for and impacts managed appropriately Natural resource and cultural protection activities undertaken Resource management 5 11. Natural and cultural Sustainable resource use - resource management management and audit systems Tie Research and monitoring of natural/ Values and threat monitoring |oyituyral management land research as Threat monitoring Achievement of set work program 12. Achievement of work P —- - 5. Outputs program Achievement of work program |Activities/ services and outputs have been produced Outcomes Management plan {Proportion of stated objectives objectives achieved achieved - Conservation of nominated values - 13. Conservation outcomes ae rang 6. Outcomes Condition assessment (all ren values) Conservation of nominated values - = Net effect of park on Effect of park management on local 14. Community outcomes community community Calculating WDPA ME indicator scores: The WCPA PAME Global Study developed a simple translation tcol mechanism (using Excel) which converts data from diverse PAME methodologies and scoring systems into the common reporting format. Indicators in the principal methodologies have been allocated to appropriate ‘headline indicators’, and this has enabled cross-analysis of all available data. The score of a WDPA ME indicator can be generated by calculating the average of the scores of the respective CRF indicators. In order to avoid displaying the raw results of PAME assessments and to simplify the display of PAME indicator scores in the WDPA website, a scoring system using a colour ramp showing a continuous scale from 0 — 1, using a gradation of green is currently being developed. Such a system will avoid the issue of putting parks into ‘categories’ or using potentially ‘loaded’ colours that might upset those responsible for or involved with the assessments. The following diagram summarises the process of calculating the WDPA ME Indicators scores: 16 $9109S SJOJEDIPU] AW WdGM Bunenoyeo 10} ssaooi1g :} aunbl4 eeey Sa Avepdoudde peBeuew spedw) pus Jo} palayeo SIONS|A OSM JOUSIA JO [9A0T Se0|N@S PUB R i SOMIOBy JOUSIA JO JOPBIEYD juewabeuew JOVUSIA, ‘OL 40}EDIPU] B4OIG — yg POPU THO yEWIO} Bunodai UOLWLWOO g 9} OjUI payejsues} SI eE}Ep MEY Z dels SOJOOS JEWO} Bulpioday UOWWWOS 8y} WO payejnojeo aie S8l00S SJOJEDIPU! FIIWd VWdGM SJOJCOIPU! SWI VWdCM 0} Bulpsoooe JOO} UO!}E|SUBI} BU} OJU! JNduI | pajyeBei6be aie saio0os yewo} Bulyodas uowWOD aue (e}ep mes) JUBLUSSaSse dU} JO s}jnsey ¢ dajs | dajs Incorporating the PAME Indicators into the WDPA: The next steps. UNEP-WCMC and the University of Queensland plan to finalise the WDPA Management Effectiveness Indicators proposed in this document by mid January 2009 and to start integrating them into the WDPA Management Effectiveness Module by the end of that same month. Once the indicators are integrated into the WDPA and ready to be populated, a set of protected areas will be chosen to pilot test the indicators and to seek feedback from PAME experts and the conservation community in general. It is expected that the WDPA ME Indicators will be used by protected areas managers, agencies and the all stakeholders interested in the information in order to track the status and progress of protected areas in terms of management effectiveness. The WDPA ME indicators will also assist the Convention on Biological Diversity and other international process in order to track progress of countries towards international conservation targets. Part Ill - Reporting on Protected Areas Management Effectiveness The PAME data collected are useful for reporting to international conventions and agreements involved with the management of protected areas. This section of the report outlines the use that has already been made of these data, in terms of reports, papers and products to conventions. It also outlines future uses and how the data might be used to track PAME on behalf of the major conservation agreements, such as the CBD, RAMSAR, World Heritage Convention, EU Birds and Habitats Directives, etc. Analysis of the PAME data So far, the following analysis and reports have been produced using the data in the PAME database: Type Title | Author(s) / Editor(s, Date Technical Effectively managing the Pavese, H. B. and Burgess, | UNEP- 2008 Report world wetlands: an analysis | N. WCMC of applications of the management effectiveness tracking tool in Ramsar sites. Technical Management effectiveness Leverington, F., Hockings, M. | University of | 2008 Report evaluation in protected and Costa, K.L. Queensland areas - aglobal stud Technical Management effectiveness | Leverington, F., Hockings, University of | 2008 Report evaluation in protected M., Pavese, H., Costa, K.L Queensland. areas — A global study. and Courrau, J. Supplementary Report: no 1 Overview of approaches and methodologies. Journal Global study of protected Pavese, H.B., Leverington, The 2007 areas management F. and Hockings, M. Brazilian effectiveness: the Brazilian Journal of perspective. Nature Conservatio n 5(1):152- 162 Technical Management effectiveness | Leverington, F., Pavese, H. University of | 2007 Report evaluation in Latin America | and Costa, K. L. Queensland and the Caribbean. Part A: Overview and recommendations. Final report to OAS InterAmerican Biodiversity Information Network Technical Management effectiveness | Leverington, F., Courrau, J., | University of | 2007 Report evaluation in Latin America | Pavese, H., Costa, K.L. and | Queensland and the Caribbean. Part B: Hockings, M. Summary of Methodologies. Final report to OAS InterAmerican Biodiversity Information Network Technical Report Management effectiveness | Leverington, F., Costa, K. L. | University of evaluation in Latin America | and Pavese, H. Queensland and the Caribbean. Part C: Patterns in protected area management effectiveness. Final report to OAS InterAmerican Biodiversity Information Network The following are planned to be produced in the near future: 1) Overall PAME paper: To present the results of the global study. 2) METT paper: To present the results of the METT applications worldwide. Building on the Dudley et al., 2007? report. 3) CBD PAME targets paper: To discuss the matter of how well countries are doing against the 30% CBD target. 4) Oryx note on METT Il and website: in press in Oryx and to be published in January 2009. 5) African regional report: To present the results of ME assessment in the region. These products are mainly technical reports and scientific papers. Only one, the report to RAMSAR, seeks to influence policy and conservation practice in a direct way. This is a limitation of the current set of outputs. The scope and extend of the analysis that can be undertaken is limited by issues related to data availability and sensitivity. As mentioned previously in this document, the PAME database does not hold the raw data (i.e. results) for most of the assessments. This is due mainly to the fact that there is still a certain resistance from countries in sharing the results of their assessments. In order to encourage governments to submit data and collaborate with the global collection effort the purposes of the use these results need to be clarified and protocols for data management need to be clearly defined. ? Dudley, N., A. Belokurov, L. Higgins-Zogib, M. Hockings and S. Stolton. 2007. Tracking progress in managing protected areas around the world. Gland, Switzerland: WWF International. 29 pp. 20 Part IV — Building Capacity for National and Regional Evaluations Over the past few years there have been an increasing number of initiatives from National Governments, NGOs and others to undertake protected areas management effectiveness assessments using new or existing methodologies. This shows a strong commitment from the conservation community towards a better management of protected areas for an effective conservation of the natural resources. These efforts have not been, however, always coordinated with other similar regional and global initiatives and also with international guidelines developed to harmonise the assessment process. In addition, national and regional governments who demonstrate an increasing interest to implement assessment programmes by adopting and institutionalising PAME methodologies often lack the technical knowledge in order to undertake this work. In order to address this need and to help countries to achieve the goal of an effectively managed system of protected areas, efforts are in place through CBD and other processes to develop and undertake capacity building programmes for PAME evaluations at the national and regional levels. Some work is currently being done on the development and pilot testing of System level assessment indicators and assessment tool in South Korea, lead by Dr. Marc Hockings. TNC has ongoing work on training and capacity building. They have developed a series of PowerPoint presentations for various topics, and then also 2-3 case studies for each topic. There are now 50 case studies, about 15 for METT. Although such initiatives have provided an important assistance for countries in undertaking PAME assessments, they have not been, however, well coordinated with each other, resulting in an eventual duplication of efforts. In this light, it is important that those working with PAME partners should share information and materials on the training and capacity building projects/workshops/events they are organizing or involved on. The ME website could be used for hosting these training sessions. It has been suggested in previous meetings of the PAME experts group that a space on the Conserve Online website with a calendar of training and capacity building section (including organisation institution) could be created in order to facilitate the dissemination of such information. This would help better coordinating the existing efforts and would allow those involved in capacity building programmes to share their experiences and lessons learned. In addition to the existing initiatives, UNEP-WCMC and UQ plan to organise capacity building workshops in selected countries and/or regions. These would introduce participants to 21 the PAME assessment process and the WCPA framework; would assist them in developing or adopting methodologies and in undertaking PAME assessments and would also introduce them to the international initiatives and guidelines in order to ensure a better coordination with global and regional processes. Such workshops would also be an outstanding opportunity to bring together stakeholders involved in PAME assessments to present and share their experiences and lessons learned. In order to organise these workshops, additional funds are required to support UNEP- WCNC staff time and to cover other expenses. The attached spreadsheet presents the detailed budget necessary for the organisation of one regional workshop per year to review experiences and lessons learned from PAME evaluations and another workshop for building capacity on PAME evaluation. 22 €2 {syuawissasse JW UO AjIDede> Buipjing 404 ‘seaA sad doysyJOM jeu! TO ASIUCTIO OL gg, ‘sjuaussesse JWWd UO UONe}UaWe|dW| pUe SpUe) ‘SWa}SAS ‘SyJOMAUEY) JO MAIAAI 10y “WeAA Jad doysysom JeuOIBad 10 esiueBi0 O|.,, “s]uane pajejal seave pajoajoid jeuoiHe, pue jeuoneusaju! Aoy Je Way) eJeulWessip puke sisAjeUe Oy} JO S}jnseJ EY) YIM SUO}}eo!\GQnd eonpodd O|,, ‘ayeos jeuo|Ge, pue jeqoj6 e je ssouani|oayo juswabeueW seaie pajoajoid uo sishjeue AjeaA 19 BYBYEpUN O| , :SaNAIJIe ayy jo UONdIs9saq Lv‘9v8'2Z2 GSN [E301 pues aseas ou! AeuOljeIJU! %B e 4/M pauunsse SI Z JeaA :sejoul S| pea, hy none I [ousereo-pue anon ‘ p90°4€l GSN 00'00S € i Ssesa] 00/000'2 ; 67'6S0'L 00‘00s"€ 00‘000°2 67'6S0°L 00'000°2 00‘000°2T 00‘000°2T £6'88S'0T vT'LEt 82 i HeIS OWOM-dSNN bevel T vS'620°7 f But EIS OWOM: SjuSWSsessy SSalian|}o90}}3 jJUauiabeueW Sealy pe}de}01q UO Buljodey 09 —————s(yquow sed shep s) apein g ejeq SSauan|joe}3 jJuaWeHeUuEW Sealy pe]oe}ol4 JO JueLEBeUeU pue sjepdn ‘UOI}D9]/05 SH8i/ io 4o skep saquinu S09 shep sequinu AWANOY | wea, asn ut 3e6png aW sieok Z 10} YOM JINVd HOddNs 0} jeHpng [Je1aAC — | JUBWUIYDeNY Z jee,