MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF PROTECTED AREAS Biodiversity Ecosystems 1.

INDICATOR

(a)

Name: Management effectiveness of protected areas

(b) Brief Definition: This indicator will use information about the context, planning and design, resource inputs, management processes, delivery of goods and services, and conservation outcomes of protected areas to determine the effectiveness with which they are being managed, and thus the effectiveness of protected areas as a tool for biodiversity conservation. (c)

Unit of Measurement: To be determined.

(d)

Placement in the CSD Indicator Set: Biodiversity / Ecosystems.

2.

POLICY RELEVANCE

(a) Purpose: The indicator represents the effectiveness of attempts to protect areas important for conserving biodiversity, cultural heritage, scientific research (including baseline monitoring), recreation, natural resource maintenance, and other values, from incompatible uses. The principal users of the framework on which the indicator is based have been: protected area management agencies, NGOs involved in conservation projects, the World Heritage Commission, and the World Bank / Global Environment Facility. (b) Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Development (theme/sub-theme): Sustainable development depends on a sound environment, which in turn depends on ecosystem diversity. Protected areas are essential for maintaining ecosystem diversity, in conjunction with management of human impacts on the environment. (c) International Conventions and Agreements: This indicator implementation of Article 8(a) of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

shows

(d) International Targets/Recommended Standards: Recommendation 16 of the Fourth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas (Caracas, 1992) establishes a target of 10% protected area of each biome (major ecosystem type) by the year 2000 (McNeely 1993). The international community has committed “to achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional, and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth by 2010”. This “2010 Target” was formally adopted by governments at the 6th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2002, and endorsed later that year at

227

the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The 2010 target, and the targets relating to the general objectives of the CBD, relate specifically to Parties to the CBD but could also be used as a guide for non-Party states. (e) Linkages to Other Indicators: This indicator is linked to other indicators which have implications for land and resource use. These would include; Forest Area as a % of Land Area, Wood Harvesting Intensity, Area of Selected Key Ecosystems, Ratification of Global Agreements, etc. It is complemented by the CSD indicator on Coverage of Protected Areas. An indicator of management effectiveness of protected areas is being developed by members of the 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (2010BIP; www.twentyten.net) as part of the suite of indicators monitoring progress towards the 2010 target. 3.

METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

(a) Underlying Definitions and Concepts: 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 it is necessary to know not only about the area and systems they cover, but also whether they are effectively managed. (b) Measurement Methods: A framework for evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas on a global scale has been developed and promulgated by the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) (Hockings et al 2000). 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. It is proposed that the indicator have six sub-indicators which contribute to understanding of how well each protected area is managed and how significant it is to biodiversity conservation at a range of scales. The sub-indicators are: • Context (including values, significance, threats); • Planning (including design (shape/size/boundary issues), and the level of management planning available); • Inputs (level of resourcing); • Processes (standards and procedures for management); • Outputs (whether stated goods and services are being delivered); • Outcomes (extent to which the protected area is achieving its stated objectives, which relate primarily to conservation of its values and abatement of threats, and to community relationships). Data for the indicator will be obtained from site-level assessments, collected by a number of methodologies developed from a common Framework. These methodologies have a range of custodians and vary in scope, purpose and focus areas, but it is anticipated that a common reporting framework can be developed resulting in a valid indicator.

228

(c) Limitations of the Indicator: The development of a global indicator or indicator set is only just beginning. No trends are yet available and there are significant data gaps. At the national level this indicator depends on the availability of sufficient, relevant data. The potentially sensitive nature of some of the data will preclude the publication of some disaggregated information. (d) Status of the Methodology: The methodology for this indicator is in its infancy, at both national and global levels. (e)

Alternative Definitions/Indicators: To be determined.

4.

ASSESSMENT OF DATA

(a) Data Needed to Compile the Indicator: Data is required for all six subindicators mentioned in 3(b) above. Specific details of necessary data to be determined. (b) National and International Data Availability and Sources: Data availability and sources for the six sub-indicators to be determined. Most countries keep statistics on protected areas, but their protected area systems may not be accurately mapped. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) provides the most comprehensive dataset on protected areas worldwide and is managed by UNEP-WCMC in partnership with the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) and the World Database on Protected Areas Consortium. The WDPA is a fully relational database containing information on the status, environment and management of individual protected areas. The WDPA enables searching of protected areas data by site name, country, and international programme or convention. It is possible to disaggregate the data in the WDPA by country, biome and habitat, and therefore it is suitable for this indicator. Data is currently available for over 110,000 protected areas worldwide. UNEP-WCMC provides online access to the WDPA Consortium 2006 World Database on Protected Areas web-download as part of a broad strategy to share conservation information. Statistical information produced for the WDPA 2006 CD-ROM which relate to WDPA datasets is also available in addition to information on the definitions and categorisation of protected areas worldwide. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN also cooperate on the compilation of the periodic United Nations List of Protected Areas, which provides the name, IUCN category, location, size, and year of establishment of all protected areas of 1,000 hectares or more (plus smaller areas occupying entire islands) for all countries. UNEP-WCMC maintains a copy of the UN list, compiles data on smaller protected areas, and has mapped most large areas and many smaller ones. (c) Data references: Full list of data references to be compiled. The United Nations List of Protected Areas (1993, 1997, 2003) is available as a web-based data resource. Ten editions of the List were previously printed between 1962 and 1990. The World Database on Protected Areas is available as a web-based data resource and on CD-ROM.

229

5.

AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDICATOR

(a) Lead Agency: The lead agency is the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, in collaboration with the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEPWCMC). (b) Other Contributing Organizations: Stakeholders and collaborators include: WWF, The Nature Conservancy, World Bank, University of Queensland, and a number of protected areas management agencies including the Conservation Measures Partnership. 6. REFERENCES Ervin, J. (2003). WWF Rapid assessment and prioritisation of protected area management (RAPPAM) methodology. WWF. Gland Switzerland. Cifuentes, M A, A Izurieta and H H De Faria (1999); Medición de la Efectividad del Manejo de Areas Protegidas, Forest Innovations Project, WWF, IUCN and GTZ, Turrialba, Costa Rica Ferreira, L V, R M Lemos de Sá, R Buschbacher, G Batmanian, N R Bensusan and K L Costa, edited by A C Barbosa and U Lacava (1999); Protected Areas or Endangered Spaces? WWF Report on the Degree of Implementation and the Vulnerability of Brazilian Federal Conservation Areas, WWF Brazil, Brasilia (available in Portuguese and English) Hockings, M., Stolton, S. & Dudley, N. (2000). Evaluating effectiveness. A framework for assessing the management of protected areas. IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines No 6. (Adrian Phillips Series Editor) Rue Mauverney 28, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland. Hockings, M. (2002). Evaluating the effectiveness of protected area management. PhD Thesis. Australian School of Environmental Studies, Faculty of Environmental Science. Griffith University, Nathan Campus, Queensland. Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Courrau, J., Dudley, N. and Parrish, J. (2004). The World Heritage Management Effectiveness Workbook: Revised Edition. United Nations Foundation. A UNESCO-IUCN project. Gland, Switzerland. Hockings, M., Leverington, F., James, R. (2005). Chapter 21. Evaluating Management Effectiveness in Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., and De Lacy, T. (2005). Protected area management principles and practice. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Leverington, F. and Hockings, M. (2004). Chapter 5. Evaluating the effectiveness of protected area management: The challenge of change. In (eds) Barber, C.V., Miller, K.R. and Boness, M. (eds) (2004). Securing protected areas in the face of global change. Issues and strategies. A report by the Ecosystems, Protected Areas and People project. IUCN Gland, Switzerland.

230

MacKinnon, J and K MacKinnon (1986); Review of the Protected Areas System of the IndoMalayan Realm, IUCN, Gland Staub, F and M E. Hatziolos (2004); Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals for Marine Protected Areas, World Bank, Washington DC Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., Mackinnon, K. and Witten, A. (2003). Reporting progress in protected areas. A site-level management effectiveness tracking tool. World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. The World Bank, Washington D.C. USA. World Conservation Union (IUCN), United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (1991). Caring for the earth: a strategy for sustainable living. Gland, IUCN.

231