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

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,