Post on 18-Jan-2016
transcript
~MPA Scorecard ~ Assessing and Reporting
on MPA Management Effectiveness
Marco V. Cerezo (FUNDAECO)
Barbara Reveles (SEMARNAT)
Wil Mehia (TIDE)
Marea E. Hatziolos (World Bank)
Objectives
To provide MPA managers with a tool:
to assess progress on management effectiveness against a baseline
capture trendsidentify gaps
to report on it in a standardized way, consistent with the WSSD target for effective, representative MPAs
to comply with performance reporting requirements, e.g., of WB and GEF
Reporting at Global Level
Use of results:• to report on progress of
investments in Protected Area management to GEF and its implementing agencies – Tool is now being mainstreamed into
terrestrial PA projects– Complement this with tool for use by
MPA managers to get an overall view of status of PA management
• to develop index of environmental sustainability at national level:
Total area under protection X = Integrity of management effectiveness ecosystems/
sustainability of goods &
services
WCPA Framework
• Context Where are we now?
• Planning Where do we want to be?
• Inputs What do we need?
• Process How do we go about it?
• Outputs What were the results?
• Outcomes What did we achieve?
Piloting the Scorecard
• Scorecard was applied in 4 MPAs
• Two of these located in the Gulf of Honduras (Trinational Alliance: TRIGOH)– One in Guatemala (Sarstun)– One in Belize (Port Honduras)
• Another in Honduras– Cayos Cochinos
• Another in Mexico– Banco Chinchorro
Results
• In Guatemala, scorecard was applied to Rio Sarstun and two terrestrial PA s in a participatory exercise w/staff
• Low score was obtained– previously a paper park– new management plan is under
preparation with field presence
• Exercise very positive– Scorecard easily applied– Uses common sense– Requires readily available
information– Does not require extensive
preparation or time– Leads to constructive discussion
More than just a
Scorecard…• Answers are the result of in- depth
discussion with staff and synthesize relevant information
• Questions address a range of issues:– Legal status and regulations– Law enforcement– Boundary demarcation– Integration into ICM plans– Resource inventory– Management Plans/ Objectives– Research– Staff, budget and resource mgt– Equipment and training– Education and communication– Indigenous People and local
community participation– Tourism, visitor facilities and fees– Economic benefits
Result of PilotsStrong Points• Easy to use/teambuilding• Indicates trends/shows gaps• Can help in reallocating effort• Potential to standardize
reporting throughout regionWeaknesses • Emphasis on process and
inputs rather than outputs and outcomes
• Need to reconcile with other evaluation tools
• Adequacy of tool depends on maturity and nature of MPA
• Implications for future donor support may influence reporting
Next Steps
• How to use the results to improve management
• How to improve the scorecard– Finer grained to more fully
capture extent of effort and progress achieved?
– More tailored to reflect differences in MPA type and age?
• How to reconcile with other tools
• Work in progress: www.MPAscorecard.net