PILOTING THE TRACKING TOOL FOR MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS IN WETLANDS

COUNTER SERVICE SURVEY WE ARE CURRENTLY PILOTING CHANGES TO
DESIGNING AND PILOTING A WORLDWIDEWEBBASED STYLISTICS COURSE
PILOTING THE TRACKING TOOL FOR MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS IN WETLANDS




Outline of the Report on ‘ Piloting the Management Effectiveness Tracking tool in Ramsar sites’

PILOTING THE TRACKING TOOL FOR MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS IN WETLANDS




"Piloting the tracking tool for management effectiveness in wetlands protected under the Ramsar Convention."


Archna Chatterjee and Jamie Pittock, WWF


Background and context


With about 1400 Ramsar sites, covering an area of 124 million hectares, barely 9.7% of the total estimated wetland area of 1280 million hectares is protected as Wetlands of International Importance. What percentage of this 9.7 % is achieving the objectives for which these Ramsar sites were established is, however, not very well known. WWFs Global Freshwater Programme has planned, over the next ten years, to champion the protection and management of 250 million hectares of freshwater wetlands, more than trebling the number of protected freshwater wetlands worldwide. To secure long-term conservation benefits, it therefore, becomes imperative, that WWF and Ramsar put in as much effort into achieving sound and effective management of existing Ramsar sites as into designating new wetland protected areas.


Measuring this effectiveness is critical for learning, adapting and improving management actions to achieve the objectives set for any area, and to help this process the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) has developed a ‘framework’ for assessment. The WCPA framework aims both to provide some overall guidance in the development of assessment systems and to encourage standards for assessment and reporting. The WCPA framework is based on the idea that good protected area management follows a process that has six distinct stages, or elements:


  1. context

  2. planning

  3. inputs

  4. processes

  5. outputs

  6. outcomes

Table 1: Summary of the WCPA framework


Elements of evaluation

Explanation

Criteria that are assessed

Focus of evaluation

Context

Where are we now?

Assessment of importance, threats and policy environment

  • significance

  • threats

  • vulnerability

  • national context

  • partners



Status

Planning

Where do we want to be?

Assessment of protected area design and planning

  • protected area

  • legislation and policy

  • protected area system design

  • reserve design

  • management planning






Appropriateness

Inputs

What do we need?

Assessment of resources needed to carry out management

Resourcing of agency

Resourcing of site

Partners

Resources

Process

How do we go about it?

Assessment of the way in which management is conducted

Suitability of management processes

Efficiency

Appropriateness

Output

What were the results?

Assessment of the implementation of management programmes and actions; delivery of products and services

Results of management actions

Services and products

Effectiveness

Outcome

What did we achieve?

Assessment of the outcomes and the extent to which they achieved objectives

Impacts: effects of management in relation to objectives

Effectiveness

appropriateness

Source Hockings et al. (2002)


WWF has drafted a wetlands protected areas management tracking tool that has been designed to fulfill the elements of evaluation included in the WCPA’s framework.


Purpose


The Tracking tool has been developed to help track and monitor progress of management effectiveness in wetland protected areas, particularly Ramsar sites, and more generally to help improve management effectiveness. The tool is based on the existing WWF-World Bank forest alliance tracking tool (http://www.panda.org/downloads/forests/areprotectedareasworking.pdf

2. http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/80ByDocName/ReportingProgressInProtectedAreaManagementEffectivenessTrackingToolJuly2002/$FILE/PATrackingToolJune2003.pdf) and the World Bank’s MPA score card http://www.icriforum.org/mpa/SC2_eng_nocover.pdf ).


Broadly the tracking tool is:



For many of these reasons the tracking tool assesses procedural outputs like preparation of management plans, rather than ecological outcomes that required expensive scientific surveys to collect relevant data on trends.


(Source: Reporting progress in protected areas: a site- level management effectiveness tracking tool, Sue Stolton et al, World Bank/WWF alliance for forest conservation and sustainable use, 2003)


The Tracking tool is designed as a multipurpose tool that would meet the needs of a variety of users and serve a number of purposes:


The tracking tool’s optimal potential would be realized when it rolls up from individual site managers through national governments to provide data through national reports, to feed into a global database. Comparison in trends over time at global, continent, country, province, sites could then be made.


It is hoped that the development of this tool may contribute to measurements for the proposed protected areas management effectiveness tracking indicators proposed for adoption by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and Convention on Biological Diversity. In this context, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in partnership with the World Bank and WWF, among others, is considering the establishment of a global database of these tracking tool assessments to monitor global trends in protected areas management.


Limitations


The tracking tool has been designed to help report progress on management effectiveness and should not replace more detailed methods of assessment of the ecological status of wetland protected areas.. The tracking tool needs to be completed and regularly used by the site manager or other relevant site staff to be useful.. This ‘simple’ approach is useful for prioritization of issues and improving the management process, but tells little about achievement of management objectives. The tool is not designed to allow detailed evaluation of ecological outcomes, but rather serves to provide a quick overview of the status of management steps identified in the WCPA framework.


The tracking tool’s ‘ scoring’ system is fraught with difficulties and possibilities for distortion, as it assumes, for example, that all the questions cover issues of equal weight. Limitations of this simple approach should therefore, be recognized.


The tracking tool can be completed by the site manager with input from other staff and, ideally, local stakeholders to validate the scoring. It has been designed to be easily answered without any field level research, but by referencing available reports and datasets.

Pilot Phase


In February 2005, WWF began preparations to field test the ‘tracking tool’ at Ramsar sites where WWF was undertaking a project or providing support to facilitate the process. An email communication went out to the WWF network’s freshwater staff seeking volunteers to test the tool. The official involvement of the Ramsar site manager in the testing of the draft tracking tool was required, so that the management agency’s response to the tool, their comments for its improvement and their ‘comfort’ factor in completing the formats could be judged and adequately incorporated in the revised version. The criteria for selection of sites for field testing were:


The pilot phase ran from April-July 2005.


The Ramsar Sites


The eight Ramsar sites selected for the field testing were:



Reserve/site name

Ramsar site #

Area (ha)

Land tenure(s)

Habitat type(s)

(eg. lake, mangrove, etc)

Danube-Drava National Park,(DDNP) Hungary, Beda-Karapancsa

901/3HU016

1,150 ha

Mainly state-owned, small parts owned privately

Rivers, oxbow lakes and ponds in the floodplain; marshlands, reedbeds, meadows, willow bushes and gallery forests with ash, elm, alder and oak trees.






Kopacki rit Nature Park, Croatia

583/3HR002

17,770 ha

A mixture of state and private ownership

Extensive Salix, Populus and Quercus woodland which is subject to spring flooding, together with numerous channels, oxbow lakes, Kopacki lake, extensive Phragmites beds and a large complex of fishponds.






Kilombero Valley Ramsar Site

1173/ ITZ003

14,400 ha

Agriculture land (small scale and irrigated farming) – private land

Flood plain

Catchment Forest reserves – under the Forest Department

Part of the Udzungwa National Park – Under the Tanzania National Parks

Game Controlled Area – Kilombero - linking with the Selous Game reserve – under the Wildlife Division

Livestock keeping – communal land

National Park of Doñana (Parque Nacional de Doñana)

234/ 3ES001.


50,720 ha.

National park

Forests, lagoons, dunes sands, marshland and wetlands






Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna Cuatrociénegas

734/4MX004

84,347 ha

Small holdings and ejido [??] property

(59% -41%).

Inland wetland

Hundreds of small, spring-fed, travertine-lined pools; and other aquatic habitat as marshes, rivers, barial lakes and channels. Long isolation in specialised habitats (incl. unique gypsum dunes) has given

rise to high biological diversity and high endemism, with the site providing habitat for

numerous threatened or vulnerable species.







Lake Mikri Prespa

60/3GR008

5,078 ha


Prespa National Forest (PNF). Despite its being called a “forest” the PNF covers the Greek part of both Micro (=Mikri) and Macro Prespa and its surrounding area. Its total area is 19,470 ha.

Ramsar wetland. The Ramsar site called Lake Mikri Prespa forms the core area of absolute protection of the Prespa National Forest

Site of Community Importance (EU Habitats Directive) and a Special Protection Area (EU Birds Directive) Both are included within the PNF

Prespa Park: The Prespa Lakes have been declared (February 2000) the first transboundary protected area in the Balkans by the prime ministers of Albania, Greece and the FYR of Macedonia.

Landscape of exceptional beauty: according to Greek national legislation

Moreover several species of the flora and fauna of Prespa are included in the Annexes of the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

Public and Private land

Habitats types based on the Ramsar classification listed in descending order of dominance:

O - Permanent freshwater lakes (> 8 ha);

N - Seasonal/intermittent/irregular rivers /streams/creeks,

Tp - Permanent freshwater marshes /pools,

Ts - Seasonal/intermittent freshwater marshes /pools,

3 – irrigated land (irrigation channels)


The site is an inland lake separated from Lake Megali Prespa by a narrow strip of alluvial deposits. Extensive reedbeds occupy the margins of the lake and there are extensive areas of floating and submerged aquatic plants. There are periodically flooded meadows within the site.






Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan, India

230/2IN002

2873 ha

Provincial/region / state

  • Water storage areas; reservoirs /barrages /dams /impoundments; (generally over 8 ha)

  • Seasonal /intermittent freshwater marshes/pools on inorganic soil; includes sloughs, potholes, seasonally flooded meadows, sedge marshes

  • Permanent freshwater marshes/pools; ponds (below 8 ha), marshes and swamps on inorganic soils; with emergent vegetation water-logged for at least most of the growing season

  • Seasonal/intermittent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes floodplain lakes






Chilika Lake, Orissa, India

229/ 2IN001

116500 ha

Provincial/ region/ state

Some parts private owned


  • Permanent rivers/streams/creeks; includes waterfalls

  • Coastal freshwater lagoons; includes freshwater delta lagoons

  • Coastal brackish/saline lagoons; brackish to saline lagoons with at least one relatively narrow connection to the sea

  • Sand, shingle or pebble shores; includes sandbars, spits and sandy islets; includes dune systems and humid dune slacks (dominant)


The process


The tracking tool questionnaire (Annex 1) and the format for tracking tool assessment report (Annex 2) sent out to WWF contact persons for each of the Ramsar sites. Field visit (s) were undertaken to the site to meet the site manager. In some cases there was no specific manager, but the area was under a government department, and was managed in general along with area under the jurisdiction of that particular department. The tracking tool questionnaire was completed jointly with the site manager. In all cases the WWF project manager contributed to the assessment. The completed questionnaires and assessment reports were analiysed by WWF, based on which the tracking tool is being revised. This report outlines the major inputs received from the Ramsar site managers, on the practical utility of the tool, its usefulness in management planning and most of all the ease with which the tool could be completed.







The ‘Scores’ for the Ramsar Sites



Ramsar Sites and their ‘Scores’

Elements

Maximum possible score

DDNP Hungary, Beda-Karapancsa


Kopacki rit Nature Park, Croatia


Kilombero Valley Tanzania



National Park of Doñana, Spain

Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna Cuatrociénegas, Mexico


Lake Mikri Prespa

Greece

Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan, India


Chilika lake, Orissa, India



Your Score

Adj.max. score*

Final score**(%)

Your Score

Adj.max. score*

Final score**(%)

Your Score

Adj.max score*

Final score**(%)

Your Score

Adj.max score*

Final score**(%)

Your Score

Adj.max score*

Final score**(%)

Your Score

Adj.max score*

Final score**(%)

Your Score

Adj.max score*

Final score**(%)

Your Score

Adj.max score*

Final score**(%)

Total score for Context (A)

26

25


96

17


65.4

11

26


20

26

76.9

18

26

69.2

13

26

50

16


61.5

23


88.5

Total score for Planning (B)

12

11


92

6


50

2

12


10

12

83.3

9

12

75.0

1

12

8.3

12


100

9


75

Total score for Inputs (C)

13

12


92

9


69.2

1

13


10

13

76.9

10

15

66.7

4

13

30.8

8


61.5

11


84.6

Total score for Process (D)

24

19


79

8


33.3

2

24


14

24

58.3

15

20

75.0

5

20

25

9


37.5

21


87.5

Total score for Outputs (E)

13

12


92

10


76.9




7

10

70

10

13

76.9

4

7

57.1

8


61.5

9


69.2

Total score for Outcomes (F)

27

23


85

9


33.3




13

22

59.1

16

27

59.3

14

27

51.9

16


59.2

17


62.1

Total (A+B+C+D+E+F)

115

102


88.7

59


51.3

16

75

21.3

74

107

69.2

78

113

69.0

41

105

39.1

69


60

90


78.3

* If some questions are not scored (e.g., not relevant), the maximum score should be changed to an adjusted (adj.) score (maximum possible score minus points for question that are not applicable).

**Final score is the percentage of your score over the maximum (if all questions have been scored) or the adjusted maximum score.



The ‘score’ results are discussed only briefly, in as much as to show the utility of the tool, as the objective of the report is to analyse the feedback on the tool itself. While the report does not reflect much on the information received from the completed formats- suffices to say that one who has not been to any of these sites would get a good picture of the ground realities at these sites. Some interesting aspects emerge from studying these scores:




Feedback from site managers


Comments and suggestions obtained from the site managers have been tabulated, based on the tracking tool assessment reports received. Both DDNP and Kopacki rit assessments were carried out by WWF-Danube Carpathian Programme and thus the comments are common.



Comments/ suggestions from Ramsar site managers and WWF project managers

The tracking tool

Elements of evaluation

General

Context

Planning

Inputs

Process

Outputs

Outcomes

Ramsar sites









  • Clear , comprehensive and useful

  • Question on stakeholder awareness and concern does not differentiate between the larger and more influential stakeholders and the smaller stakeholders, much more numerous

  • Include a question on management plan following intl. criteria (Ramsar, IUCN)

  • Include question on involvement of stakeholders through public hearing

  • Include a question on inputs and evaluations from independent researchers, NGOs, joint university-NP prog.

  • Comprehensive

  • Include a question on independent monitoring of management processes

  • A question role of NGOs

  • Communication of threats and objectives to stakeholders

  • Include a question on encouraging involvement of volunteers, NGOs, educational facilities

  • Excellent

  • Deal with uneven influence of stakeholders issue


  • Easy to use

  • Should be conducted on yearly basis

  • Would be excellent if becomes a Ramsar national report requirement


Danube-Drava National Park, Hungary, Beda-Karapancsa,


and


Kopacki rit Nature Park, Croatia









Kilombero Valley Ramsar Site

  • Should make clear distinction between wetland protected area and Ramsar site which does not have legal status as protected area

  • Stakeholder awareness on wetland values and threats should be measured separately instead of clubbing in one statement





  • Tool does not ask for information on the status of species for which the Ramsar site has been designated

  • The term, ‘Resource’ is not defined clearly

  • User-friendly tool, provides a quicker and cheaper method of gathering useful information

  • Comprehensive- it covers a range of issues and therefore serves as a reminder of critical issues which might have been overlooked in daily management operations

  • Tool is biased towards Ramsar sites (which are also PAs legally) with site managers, staff & budget but does not seem to apply on Ramsar site with no management team, staff, budget and legal status









National Park of Doñana (Parque Nacional de Doñana)

  • Include question(s) to evaluate the risk/threats/ situation in the surroundings of the Ramsar site





  • Necessary to establish a temporal reference point for the evaluation

e.g. Have resource conditions improved- but ‘since when’ is not clear

  • Tracking tool and the assessment are very useful, because the tool is simple to use and gives a complete view about the national park

  • In addition to the score, commentaries of the assessor(s) are valuable for analysis and reflection









Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna Cuatrociénegas






  • Emphasis on stakeholders participation and community welfare are strong aspects of the tool which would help the manager to adopt best practices to meet conservation goals by involving all stakeholders and at same time improve the standards of living of the communities

    • Easy tool that allows us to keep track of the activities and programmes developed in the PA

    • It does not require extra workload for the manager as it can be completed in 1-2 days

    • Would be useful if can be made mandatory to be used regularly over long period of time

    • Recommend to have a second part of the tool- which is more specific and is capable of providing detailed information on the management of the site

    • Recommend the involvement of some stakeholders in the development of the tool









Lake Mikri Prespa

  • Address the whole wetland protected area, not just the Ramsar site

  • Add question to distinguish situation in Ramsar site and the surrounding wetland PA

  • Not clear whether percentages mentioned for stakeholder awareness and concern refer to groups (1 out of 4) or absolute numbers

  • Does not clarify who is setting management objectives and who is implementing mgmt. measures

  • Agreed objectives may not necessarily be SMART, fine tune the question


  • Under staff training shouldn’t include options 0 and 1 (i.e no training or insufficient training

  • The term ‘resource’ should be defined in guidance notes

  • Reference point for ‘ outcomes’ need to be explained in guidance notes

  • More objective quantification of ‘somewhat’ or ‘significantly’ required

  • Considered useful as it helps to clearly show differences between plans, implementation and results

  • Needs fine tuning for harmonized reporting system and be suitable for replication









Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan, India

  • Legal status as a National Park might prevent involvement of local stakeholders in the planning process, tool provides a constant reminder to the manager





  • Tracking tool provides opportunity for obtaining periodic comments from the stakeholders/ local community, which can then be used as a feedback loop by the manager for the management plan

  • Assessment gave a quick view of the status of management









Chilika Lake, Orissa, India

  • Measurement of stakeholder awareness does not differentiate between the immediate stakeholders (fishermen, villagers) and the other stakeholders like tourists, students etc.


  • Along with the adequate no. of staff, the capacity of staff must also be recorded



  • Tool helps to bring out the importance of immediate stakeholders for management as compared to stakeholders as tourists, students

  • Format is user-friendly, not cumbersome to complete and does not take much time

  • Well-structured to cover most of the aspects of management

  • Helps to identify management issues and to some extent quantify them




The ‘revised’ tracking tool


Field testing the tool provided useful insights into the gaps and areas requiring clarification. The tool is now being revised based on tool assessment reports from field testing sites. The revised tool would soon be available for wider application on Ramsar sites specifically and other wetland protected areas in general.


The tracking tool and Ramsar


At a time when the importance of good management of Ramsar sites is being emphasized, WWF is of the view that the application of the tracking tool to gauge the management effectiveness at Ramsar sites could be a catalyst for more resources and support for better site management. The tracking tool would complement the management planning guide being developed for the Ramsar site managers. The tool is capable of assessing each step of the management planning, and if used at regular intervals of 1-3 years, provides crucial information to the manager, national policymakers, and Ramsar Convention on the conservation and management trends in the Ramsar sites. The tool can help identify the bottlenecks for remedial action. The ‘tool’ does not specifically track the ecological character of the sites, but indirectly addresses this through questions on ‘threats’, ‘meeting objectives’, ‘outputs ‘ , ‘outcomes’ and the monitoring and evaluation plan of the site. The tool could also be used to track any improvements in the management of the sites under Montreux Record. ‘Wise use of wetlands’ - the guiding principle of Ramsar Convention is reflected aptly in the tracking tool with its emphasis on involving the stakeholders, communities and indigenous people in the various steps of management planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The data generated from the use of tracking tool on an annual basis at Ramsar sites would contribute to the Ramsar sites database and this would also help in updating the Ramsar information sheets. The tool and the data generated through it would provide important inputs to the development of the indicator on Wetland management, currently being developed with a suite of indicators for assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of Ramsar Convention. More over, the tool is not static but an evolving one – responding to the emerging issues and concerns.



The Future Steps


Completion of the field testing phase is an important milestone in the development of this tracking tool. Linking it with Ramsar processes and approaches is the next logical step. Ramsar is in the process of development of the Indicators of effectiveness of the Convention. This is an aspect on which Ramsar STRP will be tasked to do further development work as a priority in the 2006-2008 triennium. The utility of the tool as a mechanism for acquiring information in relation to these indicators has already been recognized. The coordinated approach for application of the tracking tool on the Ramsar sites, thus assumes great significance, as well as developing linkages to similar assessments, e’g IBA monitoring by Birdlife International, Medwet qualitative assessment and the WHSRN site assessment approach, becomes important.


WWF, Ramsar and other IOPs could play a crucial role in these assessments and developing the linkages by pooling together resources and technical expertise. WWF could play a central role in coordination while Wetlands International could provide expertise on creation of the database and Ramsar could host the database. The development of the proposed ‘headline indicator’ for Ramsar sites could also be facilitated by data gathered from these assessments. This data could also be used as an indicator of wetland protected area management effectiveness by both the Ramsar Convention and Convention on Biological Diversity. Some key components of the analysis rolling up from site-level assessments could be:




Key questions for the Ramsar Convention contracting parties to consider:


  1. Is the tracking tool going to be helpful to the site managers in assessing progress and issues in the management planning for the Ramsar sites and other wetlands protected areas?

  2. Should the tracking tool be formally endorsed by the Convention in some form? COP9 DR2 will mandate the STRP to develop the mechanisms for Effectiveness indicator data acquisition and analysis, could the tracking tool be formally endorsed by the Convention as one of these mechanisms?


WWF would welcome feedback and advice from interested parties on the further revision and application of the tracking tool.






Contacts for feedback or more information:


Archana Chatterjee, Coordinator, Freshwater and wetlands Programme, WWF-India. Email [email protected]

Jamie Pittock, Director, Global Freshwater Programme, WWF International, Email: [email protected]






Tags: effectiveness in, for effectiveness, tracking, piloting, wetlands, management, effectiveness