Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals for Marine Protected Areas Prepared for the World Bank Revised version ­ July 2004 Adapted* by Francis Staub, AJH Environmetal Services Marea E. Hatziolos, World Bank The World Bank Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the World Bank ­ WWF Alliance for terrestrial Protected Areas for authorizing the use and adaptation of the tool it developed in the context of "Reporting progress at protected area sites". The authors are especially grateful to Leah Bunce of US NOAA and to the many people who commented on an earlier draft and provided useful feedback in development of the tool. Cover photograph credits (clockwise from left to right): Sea Lion in Galapagos National Park, Ecuador (David Bonnardeaux/World Bank ENV); Fisherman throwing net in Orango National Park, Guinea-Bissau (Peter Kristensen/World Bank LAC); Coral reef in the Pacific (Nancy Sefton/The Nature Conservancy). Aquaculture fishermen pulling in nets in Nha Trang Bay Marine Protected Area, Vietnam (Hon Mun Marine Protected Area Pilot Project). Contact information: Marea E. Hatziolos The World Bank Senior Coastal and Marine Specialist Environment Department Email: mhatziolos@worldbank.org Francis Staub AJH Environmental Services Email: fstaub@environmentservices.com 2 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals Purpose The purpose of the Score Card is to help ma- other stakeholders, it can be a useful team rine protected area managers and local stake- building exercise. holders determine their progress along the management continuum. It is a short, straight- This is a revised version from the publication forward self-assessment tool to help managers released in August 2003. The major changes identify where they are succeeding and where concern the sections on outputs and outcomes. they need to address gaps. Because it is in- Also, this publication is now available in Span- tended to be completed by the MPA staff and ish and French. 3 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals Background The World Summit on Sustainable Develop- target and with the reporting needs of institu- ment, which concluded in September 2002, tions like the Word Bank. The Score Card will adopted a series of targets on priority environ- allow evaluating and reporting on the perfor- mental and natural resource themes to be mance of Bank investments in marine protected achieved through partnerships between devel- areas to its shareholders and other partners, oped and developing country members. One such as the GEF. It also may serve a useful tool of these was for the establishment of represen- to other practitioners and institutions involved tative networks of marine protected areas in MPA management and is, therefore, meant (MPAs) by 2012. Implicit in this target is the to be adapted based on site and regional needs. effective management of MPAs so that they For example, the Meso-America Barrier Reef achieve their conservation objectives and con- System Project in coordination with PROARCA tribute to the larger scale ecosystem approach developed a Management Effectiveness proto- for managing coastal and marine resources, also col based on this Score Card, methodologies embraced by the WSSD. of PROARCA and on the WCPA-Marine/WWF Management effectiveness Guidelines. By pull- The development of a Score Card (SC) to be ing from these various resources, the organi- used by Marine Protected Area managers to zations developed a protocol tailored to their assess their progress and to report on this in a needs. standardized way is consistent with the WSSD 5 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals 6 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals Presentation of the Score Card (SC) The Score Card has been adapted from a tool management effectiveness of MPAs. It has been developed by the World Bank ­ WWF Alliance built around the application of the WCPA for terrestrial Protected Areas (Stolton S. et Al. Framework. Appendix II of the Framework 2003) and from other tools (Hocking M. et Al. document has provided its basic structure (the 2000 ; Mangubhai S. 2003). It is a simple site­ WCPA framework aims both to provide some level tracking tool to facilitate reporting on overall guidance in the development of assess- TABLE 1 Summary of the WCPA Framework Elements of Criteria that Focus of evaluation Explanation are assessed evaluation Context Where are we now? Significance Status Assessment of importance, Threats threats and policy environment Vulnerability National context Planning Where do we want to be? Protected area legislation Appropriateness Assessment of protected area and policy design and planning Protected area system design Reserve design Management planning Inputs What do we need? Resourcing of agency Resources Assessment of resources Resourcing of site needed to carry out management Partners Process How do we go about it? Suitability of Efficiency Assessment of the way in which management processes appropriateness management is conducted Output What were the results? Results of management Effectiveness Assessment of the implementation actions of management programmes and Services and products actions; delivery of products and services Outcome What did we achieve? Impacts: effects of Effectiveness Assessment of the outcomes and management in relation appropriateness the extent to which they achieved to objectives objectives Source: Hockings et al. (2000) 7 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals ment systems and to encourage standards for lowing web site: www.mpascorecard.net. Re- assessment and reporting). sults may also be made available online if MPA managers are willing to share them. The WCPA Framework is based on the idea that good protected area management follows a process that has six distinct stages, or ele- Level of detail in the assessment ments: Hockings et al. 2000 identified 3 possible lev- 1. context els of evaluation, each requiring different 2. planning amounts of data collection and financial in- 3. inputs put. The Score card presented here is a level 1 4. processes assessment (see figure 2). 5. outputs 6. outcomes This type of assessment (level 1) requires little or no additional data collection and focuses on Table 1 contains a very brief summary of the the context of the MPA along with the appro- elements of the WCPA Framework and the cri- priateness of planning, inputs and processes of teria that can be assessed. The Score Card has management. It relies largely on available date been designed to fulfil the elements of evalua- through literature searches and informed opin- tion included in the Framework. ions of site managers and/or independent as- sessors, takes a short period of time and costs The MPA Score Card is also available (in En- little. Issues are broadly covered, but depth of glish, French and Spanish) online at the fol- analysis is generally low. FIGURE 2 Three levels of assessment Context Planning Inputs Process Outputs Outcomes Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Source: Hockings et al. (2000). 1 For a copy of the WPCA Framework or a more detailed summary please visit the WCPA web­site at: www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa 8 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals This approach is useful for prioritization of is- in improving the effectiveness of management sues and improving the management process, in a given marine protected area. The but tells you little about the achievement of Scorecard is designed to be filled in by the management objectives. Evaluating outcomes manager or other relevant site staff. and achievement of management objectives will require an independent evaluation or other The tool does not allow a detailed evaluation more in depth assessment tool (such as the of outcomes, but rather serves to provide a WCPA-Marine/WWF Management Effective- quick overview of the status of management ness Guidelines available at http:// steps identified in the WCPA Protected Area effectivempa.noaa.gov). Management Framework, up to and including outputs. Limitations and disclaimer The whole concept of "scoring" progress is fraught with difficulties and possibilities for The Score Card is aimed at helping managers distortion. The current system assumes, for report progress on management effectiveness example, that all the questions cover issues of from a given baseline. It should not replace equal weight, whereas this is not necessarily more thorough methods of assessment for the the case. Accuracy might be improved by purposes of adaptive management (In annex weighting the various scores, although this 1, you will find a list of useful references to would provide additional challenges in decid- address the latter.) The Scorecard tool has been ing differing weightings. In the current ver- adapted / developed to provide a quick over- sion a simple scoring system is maintained, but view of the initial state of management efforts the limitations of this approach should be rec- and subsequent progress, over a period of years, ognized. 9 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals 10 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals Guidance notes for using the Score Card The MPA Score Card has many uses as an ori- agement stage or element (i.e. context, entation tool to help managers of new protected planning, inputs, processes, outputs, areas scope out issues to be addressed in es- outcomes). Each question should nor- tablishing an effective MPA, or as a tracking mally be ranked between 0 (low) and tool to provide managers with a sense of "where 3 (high) based on level of performance. they are" along the management continuum. A series of answers is provided for each It also serves as a user-friendly reporting tool question to help assessors determine on MPA status based on information largely the appropriate ranking. already collected without any additional field level research. Questions that are not relevant to a particular marine protected area The Score Card should be completed by ma- should be omitted, with a reason given rine protected area staff and, ideally, local in the comments section. stakeholders to validate the scoring. It is de- signed to be completed within a relatively short This is, inevitably, an approximate pro- period, such as during a staff meeting or other cess and there will be situations in routine meeting, by referencing available re- which none of the four alternative an- ports or datasets. swers appears to fit conditions in the protected area very precisely. We sug- gest that users choose the answer that Description of forms is nearest and use the comments sec- tion to elaborate. Two forms need to be completed: o Comments · Datasheet The comments box allows qualitative The datasheet provides key information on judgements to be justified by explain- the site, its characteristics and management ing why they were made (this could objectives. range from personal opinion, a refer- ence document, monitoring results or · Assessment Form external studies and assessments ­ the The assessment form includes distinct sec- point being to give anyone reading the tions, all of which should be completed. report an idea of why the assessment was made). o Questions and scores The main part of the assessment form In this section we also suggest that re- is a series of questions grouped by man- spondents add any useful information 11 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals that should be shared with other MPA Final Score managers (for example good practices or successful activities). Users will have a score for each of the six ele- ments of evaluation and a final score after com- pleting the assessment form. If some questions are not scored (e.g., not relevant), the maxi- mum score should be changed to an adjusted score (maximum possible score minus points for question that are not applicable). Your fi- nal score will be a percentage of your score over the adjusted maximum score. 12 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals 1. Data sheet Name of marine protected area: Location of marine protected area (country and, if possible, map reference): Date MPA was established: Agreed: Gazetted: Ownership details (i.e. owner, tenure rights etc): Management Authority: Contact information and web site (if any): Size of marine protected area (ha): Percent of MPA that is terrestrial (%): Number of staff: Permanent: Temporary: Volunteers: Annual budget: Designations (IUCN category, World Heritage, Ramsar, etc): Reasons for designation: The MPA is part of a larger management zoning plan: Yes No Brief details of World Bank funded project or projects in MPA: Brief Description of the primary habitats represented in the MPA (reef, seagrass, mangrove, lagoon, estuary...): Habitat 1: Habitat 2: Two primary marine protected area objectives: Objective 1: Objective 2: Two most important threats to the MPA (and reasons why): Threat 1: Threat 2: Top two critical management activities: Activity 1: Activity 2: Top 4 stakeholder groups: Stakeholder group 1: Stakeholder group 2: Stakeholder group 3: Stakeholder group 4: Resources conditions: poor average good Date assessment was carried out: Name/s of assessor: Role (position) : Contact information: Date(s) of previous score card assessment(s): 13 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals environment policy the and threats Comments Comments important Your Score Your Score of 1 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 status? but case the the the Assessment should the human in in in the legal in recognition in ineffectively human area now? gazetted have (or implemented describe activities activities activities we area being problems problems protected unsustainable are ves of gazetted international similar) column, human human human effectively begun Are unsustainable major some or ­ reser protected marine yet process legally and/or are are being Where gazetted the trust not area the been a are private comments there there not controlling marine that has in by national controlled? unsustainable but unsustainable but unsustainable and for is is has the regulations for )+ the in( protected area exist exist exist Context: agreed area area owned area option process effectively Does incomplete is received detail A. ­ has in poaching) the controlling area controlling area controlling area still ves has marine them them fourth protected but protected is protected A mechanisms for for for Point importance (e.g. the protected status reser MP no see its in protected protected protected marine government marine marine The for recognition are Legal gazetted process Note: private a. Marine activities 1. The The be The the The of Additional 2. There activities Mechanisms marine implementing Mechanisms marine implementing Mechanisms marine 14 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals Comments Comments Your Score Your Score 0 1 2 3 +1 +1 0 1 2 3 but ce remain cated skills protected national the the by enfor of marine to marine the demar authority both the marine ce lack ce marine by by by ces deficiencies known ce volunteers, levied Are ­ enfor (e.g. enfor not appropriately enforce to to some enfor fines (e.g., are known known known is to is is appropriately is ces ces but and ces area and regulations area area not area capacity/resour control demarcation is y sufficiently and of but staff stakeholders regulations regulations ces prosecuted protected staff in protected protected protected capacity/resour other stakeholders and capacity/resour and sour boundar demarcated? other Can capacity/resour legislation or and and ­ area and marine stakeholders regulations communities) regularly marine marine marine rules? effective area the deficiencies the the the no legislation acceptable legislation excellent and are other additional of local known area authority of y by of y authority of authority Points are y have area major budget) have area protected have enforcement protected vices, are cated staff staff staff legislation There ser Infractions known boundaries boundar boundar boundar Law protected patrol a. b. Marine boundaries not 3. The protected There marine no The protected The area Additional 4. The management The is The management The management demar 15 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals Comments Comments Your Score Your Score 0 1 2 3 +1 +1 0 1 2 3 ­ plan for into sustain represent of plan larger into marine vey a A in incomplete the sur not sufficient y areas A MP begun eco-region to plan? integrated still is is management MP the yet is collectively collectively with key economic economic economic of the marine biophysical, area area for management not being and and necessar and of of coastal a which which the has process in making information the As As on associated coastal management protected protected but sufficient integration the larger MP MP process a is of of integration the process but of variation enough decision A larger the available socio-cultural socio-cultural socio-cultural coastal a the the functions marine in plan part conditions and marine making MP in about but is is there network network the the the A larger a a Is about ­ with with with MP a plan plan area area of of y planning of ecosystem information biophysical, biophysical, biophysical, the part part bio-geographic economic maintained management no of part discussions is is of area? the the the and A A A inventor or decision-making discussion protected protected on support on planning/decision on Points marine the area associated associated being of associated MP to no management some MP MP management coastal range little and not is is the marine marine The larger The the is is areas Integration Is larger a. b. Resource manage 5. There coastal There coastal The a The Additional 6. There socio-cultural protected Information conditions sufficient Information conditions key work Information conditions planning 16 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals planning and involved) design area stakeholders the (list protected Comments Comments Comments score marine of Your Score adjusted Your Score Your Score or 0 1 2 3 26 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 Assessment (A): to is the aware marine be? area only it but efforts are the to is partially threats? about concerned Context concerned managed area or is and and or for these about protected AL want prepared being but and plan stakeholders aware only concerned management aware TOT we objectives marine protected been Are are is ­ or threats are threats do has it conditions and concerned Have the and and or ­ objectives objectives objectives for marine or but aware management concern threats the are Where a exists resource stakeholders aware agreed agreed agreed ­ agreed for prepared and and stakeholders of conditions of conditions are objectives has has has there plan ce ce threats plan been Is marine -50% being and area area area area ­ is stakeholders have awareness about conditions, resour resour plan of ce 25% 50%-75% Planning plan stakeholders B. management protected protected protected objectives management 25% marine marine of protected conditions implemented? implemented resour agreed? objectives implemented no ce these is concerned than the the 75% marine marine marine being Stakeholder Marine been firm Management being approved management 7. and Less marine Approximately about Approximately about Over resour 8. No The The partially The meet 9. There A not An implemented 17 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals management out y carr to needed Comments score adjusted resources Your Score or of 3 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 14 0 1 2 vey the (B): in review sur key the systems, cement Assessment directed for representation considered are not from Planning marine years) as social is periodic enfor is implemented 5 for the it well considered for and need? plan AL in but least as are we being evaluation TOT management is (at opportunity practices, place process do work work representation monuments, and ch ch and area plan groups plan and ch management-oriented decisions and development of taking adequate management user of What resear resear exists traditional planning the ­ master the includes and sites resear to work and and protected plan allows schedule into ch term impacts management tied program a vey vey Planning including historic is Inputs long influence resear sur sur marine religious process the for a process to of monitoring, plan participation C. there or work? of hoc genders established of Is vey ad management also process culture, incorporated ­ ethnic, features, an needs Points is both planning is sur planning socioeconomic local updating results area the regulations research no some considerable the is is is There The stakeholders Stakeholder various from The planning The cultural in There and The routinely Management of approved Research and a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. An Additional 10. There protected There There towards 18 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals details) (provide Comments Comments Your Score Your Score 3 +1 0 1 2 3 +1 0 1 2 3 ch to and resear site manage to the local needs and determine of funding improved activities of vey to management management sur needs ces further full of employed programs, manage sour be critical sufficient? area management to the conducted the management needs people for of program volunteer basic could meets been level management budget for capacity but critical from detail protected and have enough the the for to for current integrated management please marine there optimum to studies support the inadequate acceptable, sufficient area levels Are Is the is is management is ­ inadequate below adequate etc ­ for use area? constraint column: relevant capacity are are are is staff additional budget budget budget effective budget protected comprehensive, Point Point is budget serious a ying numbers no protected no a the is which are of Carr sustainable numbers numbers numbers comments is Staff There communities, the Current available available achieve available a. a. the There work Additional 11. There Staff Staff activities Staff Additional 12. In There The presents The fully The needs 19 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals conducted is actions) management communication major which your in (list way the Comments Comments score of adjusted Your Score Your Score or +2 +1 14 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 Assessment its (C): this are there Is but to and funding; taxes, ­ Inputs there program used but implemented area for program, area but and management? planned AL a being being managers stakeholders is is TOT managers? awareness protected government stakeholders. contributions, about there awareness program protected and and managers and that stakeholders that basis. on Is and the NGO go ­ and of marine program relevant we between program relevant program the from awareness needs managers A0 for multi­year dependent component education do program program a education and stakeholders stakeholders and MP amongst comes awareness this amongst A on hoc yet. How the between A budget entirely for MP also ­ and effective ad in between between MP needs not awareness education and communication scheduled communication communication the is and objectives or the limited secure no is for and a funding program? planning the or involved for Points is education gaps budget etc. Process limited planned planned to planned planned no a a a little communication a a is is overall planned support There management The instead, fees, D. is is is is a is is Education education no serious linked support Communication communication a. b. not built Additional 13. There There but There still There fully 14. There stakeholders There is There build implementation There to 20 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals Comments Comments Your Score Your Score +1 0 1 2 3 +1 0 1 2 3 A for MP (and for management between peoples to discussions resulting some making decisions stakeholders rents management the relating decisions to in to management into the managers Do to ces in ­ into A relating resulting traditional input input MP decisions? area relating the decisions /agreements resour input contribute participate A ) decisions and have in no some other MP A involvement participation discussions some making MP have with protected have directly directly decisions to in practices the and management into recover the direct contributions indigenous to into involvement to of no good input Do peoples peoples peoples peoples using of ­ but input input direct contribute participate financial management management no some communication involvement area no operators to to people clear regularly traditional traditional traditional traditional have have but directly directly management or Point some exchanges Point are and benefits the and management and and is meaningful tourism relating relating to to protected Stakeholder There and local have Indigenous resident decisions? There example the management a. Additional 15. Stakeholders of Stakeholders management Stakeholders Stakeholders to Additional 16. Indigenous relating Indigenous relating decisions Indigenous decisions Indigenous decisions 21 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals needs) training major your (list Comments Comments Comments Your Score Your Score Your Score 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 of inadequate. improved needs the maintained. overall implemented needs. socioeconomic of wholly no evaluation further maintained. well socioeconomic well staff? are is but management be future and is evaluated? for needs and it for international management or the these and and could biophysical, equipped? used exists, to the but results training but biophysical, the evaluation, anticipated adequate of monitoring with facilities. national facilities Are A0 and system management. are in relative with ­ monitored of tune and facilities MP enough and low adequate, in adequately site and evaluation the and collection systematically a there are are are site facilities and of implemented evaluation as area, monitoring not management Is objectives the equipment and evaluation indicators and ­ skills area. skills skills Is equipment regular and are hoc the ­ no and context equipment ad no and and and or protected monitoring agreed results adaptive Points participates training untrained. in A protected little some achieve equipment adequate governance no some and/or an but monitoring are training training training is is of is is is is MP Staff marine Equipment Monitoring and governance used fully good The 17. Staff Staff marine Staff to Staff the 18. There There Most There 19. There and There strategy There system A and Additional a. 22 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals respondents used, being is Card management of Score the vices time ser section. first and this the implementation is skip to this Comments Comments score the If of products have of may y adjusted Your Score Your Score or +1 +1 25 assessment. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 +1 deliver last respondents Assessment )+ the As, (D): MP )+ actions; since ACC, 5. 4. 6. ,CP mitigate results? Regulations installed program(s)) to process status and establish improved? A 3. the for the progress been Legal MP question of place AL been question question newly 1. 2. to in on to to have CARICOMP TOT were For question name programs based to refers( improved one such the question refers( has years. indicators question refers( to new Capability What 3 to ICM ­ refers( or last into )+ improved concern programs .(Provide assessed context (refers refers( improved be the Response have has has and improved cation )+ y available, similar Outputs over ­ A )+ integrated )+ 7. vices or threats E. y now should improved improved has )+ MP cation monitoring demar ser non y been the inventor are Emergency outputs has have of awareness ce and AGGRA indicators cement cement demar inventor question an from has outputs y A signs is ce to ­ assess status enfor enfor Boundar The A MP resour Context Products environmental GCRMN, There impacts Legal Regulations Law Law Boundar MP The Integration The Resour Stakeholder refers( Signs b. N.B.: should 20. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. 21. a. 23 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals Comments Comments Comments Your Score Your Score Your Score +2 +1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 new are in but or ­ in activities have in sufficient activities to one participation? not stakeholders management available, decision-making council) in y but participation stakeholders, for new are participation stakeholders for improved improved or stakeholders education critical management participation advisor for for have available two been stakeholder activities activities, activities materials stakeholder ­ (e.g. available the improved improve available, participation A) stakeholder for available sheet) to sufficiently ensure MP stakeholder been now for activities activities have to for the ­ data activities not taken been are education activities ­ management management management at stakeholders? activities the has stakeholder in been have mechanisms for education education developed for available and/or mechanisms and/or and/or activities outings education have moorings ­ materials been mechanisms education (listed sufficient threats activities activities management no some sufficient public developed no some sufficient installed not have are are are are are are measures Mechanisms and/or mechanisms Environmental (e.g. been are Management activities address Moorings been Education one b. c. 22. There decision-making There decision-making There decision-making 23. There There they There 24. Management Some Management 24 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals Comments Comments Comments Your Score Your Score Your Score 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 2 3 ? and of they the facilities do to marine levels authority help achieve the visitor could levels government of applied, environs local that current fully they for are its the area to but current needs central or to sufficient for collected to areas needs fines) area vices, have not protected improved A vices ser are straight disbursed future MP ser inappropriate and sufficient -tourism, management? area protected management go fees protected are further the and are are marine the area they they be fees the marine with anticipated does vices construction facilities vices y exists, but marine but protected ­ facilities ser ser could (entr the other tune with visiting and under visitor and protected to but in system marine for and visitor fees facilities are collected, collected, and/or management If fee the no or some ­ marine a are are fees trained of trained area, returned this Training are facilities are facilities than are was was Visitor improved Fees help fees not fees Staff visitation 25. There Visitor visitation There be Visitor of 26. Although The are The rather There support 27. Staff objectives Staff protected 25 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals extent the and outcomes the of Comments Comments Comments score objectives adjusted Your Score Your Score Your Score or 33 Assessment achieved 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 they (E): achieve? which levels sheet outputs we to for data same did page) improved? AL the the addressed levels TOT in somewhat addressed sheet What ­ data same conditions (listed addressed the the addressed sufficiently significantly in approximately somewhat significantly been resource at objectives not been been been Outcomes (listed A somewhat reduced Have declined stayed improved improved F. MP have have have have approximately threats at have have have have reduced largely Have ­ addressed? objectives objectives objectives objectives Have ­ increased stayed been been conditions­ been reduced? conditions conditions conditions conditions have have have have ce ce ce ce Objectives page) Threats been Resource 28. Management Management Management Management 29. Threats Threats Threats Threats 30. Resour Resour Resour Resour 26 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals examples) some (provide Comments Comments Comments Your Score Your Score Your Score 0 1 2 3 +1 +1 +1 +1 0 1 2 3 0 uses features, declined stayed and including society and ces same have have have have cultural to improved? the regulations? culture, resour ces environmental threats A MP welfare local systems, resour regulations community community community community marine the to somewhat significantly with distributed the the the the social community conditions, with in in in in with reduced marine approximately ce linked the Has community been ­ living living living living equitably of stayed improved improved resour complying Has of of of of enhanced of declined complying ­ have are has has has compatible or relationships, A are has users is benefits monuments MP y awareness same Are users welfare standards standards standards standards and conflicts the ­ the improved? awareness awareness awareness awareness of and and and and practices, use maintained activities points somewhat significantly sites from ce 25% management been A non-monetar than Community Environmental awareness Compliance MP traditional historic Resour Benefits The have 31. Livelihoods Livelihoods approximately Livelihoods improved Livelihoods improved Additional a. b. c. d. 32. Environmental management Environmental Environmental Environmental 33. Less 27 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals Comments score Your Score adjusted or 1 2 3 0 1 +1 +1 27 A (F): with and in MP and the and and in satisfied outcomes process process participate for the process process the AL with the the represented TOT regulations with regulations regulations stakeholders A? with effectively with to with with the MP satisfied with satisfied able adequately Are the are ­ satisfied satisfied of are are are are complying are complying they they complying are are outputs are that that processes stakeholders satisfaction A A A2 A3 users and stakeholders feel decisions feel users of MP of users stakeholders MP MP MP of stakeholders of of 25% the of the the of the points 50% of of 75% of of to -75% process 75% than 50% to 75% Stakeholder the to Stakeholders management Stakeholders decision-making 25% 50% Over 34. Less outputs 25 outputs 50% outputs Over outputs Additional a. b. 28 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals a the be will relevant), the score score. not percentage over final the (e.g., .Your is score maximum scored score your of not adjusted Final are applicable) not are questions that score some If Adjusted question maximum form. for points y assessment minus the score score Summar 26 14 14 25 33 27 Maximum possible completing possible Score after (maximum evaluation score. of score score maximum elements adjusted Your six an to the adjusted of the each changed A+B+C+D+E+F) over (F) for be (B) (A) (D) (= (E) (C) score Total score should a your Context Planning Inputs Process Outputs Outcomes have score of for for for for for for will score score score score score score centage Users maximum per Final Final Final Final Final Final 29 Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals Annex 1: Useful References Day J., Hockings M., and Jones G. 2003. Mea- Heritage Toolkit ­ Book 2. A workbook on suring effectiveness in Marine Protected how to build assessment, monitoring and Areas ­ Principles and Practice. reporting systems on the management ef- Hatcher B., Sale P., Usseglio P., and Arias fectiveness of World Heritage Sites. 136pp. Gonzales J. Recommendations on Meth- www.enhancingheritage.net odology for Monitoring the Effectiveness Kelleher, G. 1999. Guidelines for Marine Pro- of MPA Management. Report to tected Areas. IUCN­The World Conserva- Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System Project tion Union, Gland, Switzerland. Coordination Unit. Mangubhai, S. 2002. Biological and socioeco- Hockings, M. 1998. Evaluating management nomic monitoring programmes and assess- of protected areas: integrating planning and ment recently carried out or underway in evaluation. Environmental Management MPAs in selected countries in the Western 22(3): 337­346. Indian Ocean: Kenya, Madagascar, Hockings, M. 1999. Management effectiveness Seychelles, South Africa and Tanzania. of protected areas. Theme issue. Parks 9(2). Unpublished report, IUCN Eastern Africa Hockings M. 2000. Evaluating protected Area Regional Office, Nairobi, Kenya. Management. A review of systems for as- Pomeroy R., Parks J., and Watson L. 2002. sessing management effectiveness of pro- Working Draft Guidebook: How is Your tected areas. School of Natural and Rural MPA Doing? Guidebook for Evaluation Systems. Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas. A Hockings, M., Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. 2000. Resource Guide on Biophysical, Socio­ Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Eonomic and Governance Indicators for Assessing the Management of Protected Evaluating MPA Managment Effectiveness. Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cam- http://effectivempa.noaa.gov bridge, UK, 121 pages. Stolton S. et al. 2003. Reporting Progress at Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N. and protected Area Sites. A siple site­level Parrish, J. 2000b. The Enhancing Our tracking tool developed for the World Bank, Heritage Toolkit ­ Book 1. A training Washington, DC and WWF. manual on how to build assessment, moni- WWF. Improving Protected Area Management toring and reporting systems on the man- ­ WWF's Rapid Assessment and agement effectiveness of World Heritage Prioritisation Methodology. Sites. 36pp. www.enhancingheritage.net http://www.panda.org/downloads/forests/ Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N. and Summary_final.pdf Parrish, J. 2000c. The Enhancing Our 30