PM EOH 23 cover 22/05/08 13:24 Page 1 papers23

For more information contact:UNESCO World Heritage Centre

7, place de Fontenoy75352 Paris 07 SP FranceTel : 33 (0)1 45 68 15 71Fax : 33 (0)1 45 68 55 70E-mail : [email protected]://whc.unesco.org

23

Enha

ncin

g ou

r H

erit

age

Tool

kit

Des

ign

by R

ecto

Vers

o

World Heritage papers23World Heritage papers

Wo

rld

Heri

tag

epa

pers

Enhancing our Heritage ToolkitAssessing management effectiveness of natural World Heritage sites

PM_EOH_23_cover 22/05/08 13:24 Page 1


PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 1

Disclaimer

The authors are responsible for the choice and presentation of the facts contained in this publication and for the opinionsexpressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or itsauthorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Reproduction is authorized, providing that appropriate mention is made of the source, and copies are sent to the UNESCOaddress below:

World Heritage CentreUNESCO7, place de Fontenoy75352 Paris 07 SP FranceTel : 33 (0)1 45 68 15 71Fax : 33 (0)1 45 68 55 70Website: http://whc.unesco.org

Cover Photo:Park wardens at Serengeti National Park, UR of Tanzania, on a Black rhino monitoring patrol. © UNESCO Marc Patry

Authors:Marc Hockings and Robyn James – University of Queensland, School of Natural and Rural Systems ManagementSue Stolton and Nigel Dudley – Equilibrium ConsultantsVinod Mathur – Wildlife Institute of IndiaJohn Makombo – Uganda Wildlife AuthorityJose Courrau and Jeffrey Parrish – The Nature Conservancy

Supervision and coordination:Marc Patry, UNESCO World Heritage Centre

Coordination of the World Heritage Papers Series:Vesna Vujicic-Lugassy, UNESCO World Heritage Centre

Published in May 2008 by UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

© UNESCO/2008

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 2

3

The Enhancing Our Heritage Toolkit is the labour of over seven years of site-based ‘learning by doing’efforts and represents an important cooperation of UNESCO World Heritage Centre, IUCN and ourpartners. It was developed by a small and dedicated team of specialists with the critical and enthusi-astic participation of World Heritage site managers from nine properties located around the world.The field-based experience of this group ensured that the Toolkit is rooted in practical realities andthe requirements of the end users. We wish to thank these people for their tireless dedication to thismajor initiative.

Natural World Heritage sites, like all protected areas, face many challenges to their integrity which,unless addressed can erode the outstanding universal value for which they were inscribed on the listof World Heritage. Those responsible for the conservation and management of World Heritage prop-erties have the complex task of anticipating and dealing with these challenges, most often in an envi-ronment of limited financial and organizational capacity.1 Under these circumstances, it is incumbentupon them to invest their efforts in the most critical areas, ensuring that available resources areapplied to their maximum effectiveness.

The Enhancing Our Heritage Toolkit contains twelve practical tools, each designed to help thoseresponsible for World Heritage site conservation piece together the elements of a comprehensivemanagement framework, including the construction of targeted monitoring strategies. Designed asseparate exercises, each with tables and guidelines, the emphasis is on user-friendliness, flexibility,and adaptability to local realities. Although it has been developed with a focus on natural properties,the initiative also has potential value as a tool to assist cultural properties.

Two of the nine participating sites were on the List of World Heritage in Danger at the outset of thedevelopment of the Toolkit. By the time the project had been completed, both had been removed fromthe Danger list. Though other factors are involved, the application of these tools in these sites clearlyhelped managers effectively deal with some of their major management challenges. It is in this spiritthat we heartily welcome the Enhancing Our Heritage Toolkit into the ever expanding box of WorldHeritage site management tools being developed through the World Heritage Convention. Our aim isto help World Heritage site managers and others involved in the management of the highest priorityprotected areas of the world improve their capacities and reach their management objectives for thebenefit of the global community.

Francesco Bandarin Julia Marton-LefèvreDirector of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre IUCN Director-General

Foreword

1. In this connection we draw your attention to the on-line course “Business Planning for Financial Sustainability”, developed by The NatureConservancy with support from the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and hosted by the State University of Washington, and to the ShellFoundation – UNESCO funded ‘Business Planning for Protected Area Managers Toolkit’.

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 3

4

On behalf of IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) we are delighted to welcome theproduction of the Enhancing Our Heritage Toolkit, and to recommend it to the worldwide protectedareas community.

Protected Areas are for life’s sake. World Heritage sites act as flagships for the 120,000 protected areasthat have been established by States across the globe. These special places are at the frontline ofnature conservation.

WCPA recognizes the need to strengthen capacity and effectiveness of protected areas managers,through provision of guidance, tools and information and a vehicle for networking. The EnhancingOur Heritage Toolkit helps to make this objective a reality and focuses on the need for sound infor-mation and an adaptive approach which are key ingredients for successful World Heritage site man-agement. The project has been built around the application of the IUCN World Commission onProtected Areas (WCPA) framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas, andtherefore represents an international standard for best practice. We are grateful for the partnershipwith UNESCO, and the support of the United Nations Foundation that enabled it to happen.

The Toolkit is of particular value as it is rooted in practical experience at ground level, and has beendeveloped with protected area managers at World Heritage sites in Africa, South Asia and LatinAmerica that have all been recognized for their biodiversity values. It has been designed to supportthe established monitoring processes of the World Heritage Convention by helping to provide sitemanagers with the information on the condition and management of sites required to supportPeriodic Reporting and address issues identified in State of Conservation reports.

The Toolkit is also a good example of how the World Heritage Convention can help to create productsthat are of wide benefit to the conservation and effective management, not only within WorldHeritage sites, but in all protected areas. In this way the Toolkit also makes an important contributionto supporting the implementation of other international agreements, such as the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD) Programme of Work on Protected Areas.

We would like to express our appreciation to all those who have made this project a reality. WCPA andIUCN are fully committed to promoting the widespread use of this toolkit and we look forward to itsuse and continued development.

Nik Lopoukhine David SheppardChair, WCPA Head, IUCN Programme on Protected Areas

Prefacefrom the IUCN World Commission

on Protected Areas

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 4

Table of contentsPage 3

Page 4

Page 7

Page 11

Page 19

Page 20

Page 25

Page 28

Page 32

Page 34

Page 40

Page 44

Page 47

Page 56

Page 58

Page 60

Page 67

Page 69

Page 70

Page 75

Page 80

Page 87

Page 93

Page 97

Page 98

Page 102

Page 103

Forewordby Francesco Bandarin and Julia Marton-Lefèvre

Preface from the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areasby Nik Lopoukhine and David Sheppard

Management Effectiveness and World Heritage

Carrying out an Assessment

The Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit

Tool 1: Identifying Site Values and Management Objectives Tool 2: Identifying Threats

Tool 3: Relationships with StakeholdersTool 4: Review of National Context

Tool 5: Assessment of Management PlanningTool 6: Design Assessment

Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and InputsTool 8: Assessment of Management Processes

Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan ImplementationTool 10: Work/Site Output Indicators

Tool 11: Assessing the Outcomes of ManagementTool 12: Review of Management Effectiveness Assessment Results

Case Studies

Keoladeo National Park, IndiaSangay National Park, Ecuador

Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda

Applying the Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit to Cultural World Heritage Sites

Project to Process: the Future

Appendices Appendix 1: Related Tools

Appendix 2: Glossary

Acknowledgements

5

6

2

3

4

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 5

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 6


7

Developing an assessment of management effectiveness for SerengetiWorld Heritage site, UR of Tanzania.

© Robyn James

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 7

Introduction

The idea of identifying and protecting the world’smost important natural and cultural sites has cap-tured the imagination and commitment of manypeople and governments around the world. It led directly to the birth of the World HeritageConvention in 1972 and its subsequent ratificationby more than 180 countries. These countries havecommitted themselves to ensuring the protection oftheir cultural and natural heritage, considered to beof outstanding universal value to humankind. By2007, 851 sites had been included on the WorldHeritage list, including nearly 200 sites listed solelyor partly for their natural values.

Inclusion of sites on the World Heritage list is animportant step in ensuring their protection but doesnot, on its own, guarantee that the sites will meetthe commitment to protection, conservation, presen-tation and transmission to future generations thatdesignation as World Heritage entails. Despite the best efforts of countries, many World Heritage sites remain under pressure. The time of the WorldHeritage Committee is increasingly taken up withdiscussion of pressures on sites, consideration ofreports of monitoring missions, proposals for listingand - recently - de-listing sites on the World Heritagein Danger list and, in general, working with and sup-porting countries in the challenges they face in man-aging these sites.

For natural World Heritage sites, this can also beseen as part of larger global efforts to conserve the world’s biodiversity and other natural valuesthrough the designation and management of pro-tected areas such as national parks. Large amountsof money, land and human effort are being investedin buying and managing protected areas around theworld. However, the declaration of a protected areaand well-intentioned efforts to manage it do notalways guarantee the conservation of its values.

Management effectiveness

In recent years there has been a growing concern amongstprotected area professionals and the public that many pro-tected areas, including some natural World Heritage sites,are failing to achieve their objectives and, in some cases,are actually losing the values for which they were established. As a result, improving the effectiveness of protected area management has become a prioritythroughout the conservation community. One importantstep in this process is the carrying out of an assessment ofcurrent status and management of the protected area, tounderstand better what is and what is not working, and toplan any necessary changes as efficiently as possible.Assessment of management effectiveness has emerged asa key tool for protected area managers and is increasingly

being required by governments and international bodies.For example, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)Programme of Work for Protected Areas (agreed inFebruary 2004) calls on all State Parties to implement man-agement effectiveness assessments for at least 30% oftheir protected areas by 2010.

In response to these initiatives, work on managementeffectiveness assessment has become an increasingly com-mon component of protected area management world-wide. Evaluations have now been undertaken in manythousands of protected areas and the pace of this work isaccelerating. International organizations working withprotected areas such as IUCN and its World Commissionon Protected Areas, the World Bank, the GlobalEnvironment Facility as well as NGOs such as WWF andThe Nature Conservancy have taken a lead in both pro-moting the importance of management effectiveness asan issue, and in providing the technical development andsupport needed to underpin this effort. The UNESCOWorld Heritage Centre has played a key role in thisprocess, supporting both methodological developmentand the application of management effectiveness assess-ment systems in natural World Heritage sites, culminatingin the production of this technical publication.

Demands made on protected area managers to report onthe status of their site have also increased. For example,global commitments such as the Millennium DevelopmentGoals and the CBD’s goal to ‘achieve by 2010 a significantreduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss’ bothrequire governments to report on the state of their coun-try’s biodiversity protection. Management effectivenessassessments can provide information needed for reporting.

The World Heritage Convention has additional reportingrequirements: its systems of periodic reporting and reac-tive monitoring. All signatories to the Convention have toproduce periodic reports on sites within their jurisdiction.In addition, the Advisory Bodies to the Convention (IUCNfor natural sites and ICOMOS for cultural sites) togetherwith the UNESCO World Heritage Centre prepare occa-sional state of conservation reports on sites at the requestof the World Heritage Committee. Other conventions,regional processes, individual governments and donororganizations impose additional reporting requirementson managers which require a range of information, bothin terms of data to support funding applications and forreporting on the use of funds. Finally, a variety of stake-holders, from businesses to local people, should also beregularly informed on the status of neighbouring WorldHeritage sites.

However, assessments should not primarily be aboutreporting on or judging either World Heritage sites orWorld Heritage staff. As important as reporting require-ments are, the assessment of management effectivenessshould primarily be used to assist managers to work aseffectively as possible.

8


PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 8

Monitoring threats and activities affecting a WorldHeritage site and using the results to manage for chal-lenges, threats and pressures is increasingly seen as beingat the core of good site management. Assessments helpmanagers and stakeholders reflect on their experience,allocate resources efficiently, and plan for effective man-agement in relation to potential threats and opportunities.

What is a management effectiveness assessment?

Protected area management effectiveness evaluation isdefined as the assessment of how well protected areas arebeing managed – primarily, whether they are protectingtheir values and achieving agreed goals and objectives.The term ‘management effectiveness’ reflects three mainthemes of protected area management:• Design issues relating to both individual sites and pro-

tected area systems;• Adequacy and appropriateness of management systems

and processes;• Delivery of protected area objectives including conserva-

tion of values.

The precise methodology used to assess effectiveness dif-fers between protected areas, and depends on factorssuch as the time and resources available, the importanceof the site, data quality and stakeholder pressures. The dif-fering situations and needs for protected areas thusrequire different methods of assessment. As a result, anumber of assessment tools have been developed to guideand record changes in management practices.

A uniform theme to these assessments has been providedby the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas(WCPA) Framework for Assessing the ManagementEffectiveness of Protected Areas (see Figure 1 for moreinformation), which aims both to give overall guidance inthe development of assessment systems and to encouragebasic standards for assessment and reporting.

This toolkit uses the framework to develop a range ofassessment tools for managers of natural World Heritagesites to build a comprehensive system of managementeffectiveness assessment.

The WCPA Framework for Assessing ManagementEffectiveness

The WCPA Framework sees management as a process orcycle with six distinct stages, or elements:

• it begins with establishing the context of existing valuesand threats

• progresses through planning• allocation of resources (inputs)• as a result of management actions (process)• eventually produces goods and services (outputs)• that result in impacts or outcomes.

Of these elements, the outcomes most clearly indicatewhether the site is maintaining its core values, but out-comes can also be the most difficult element to measureaccurately. However, the other elements of the frameworkare all also important for helping to identify particularareas where management might need to be adapted orimproved.

Over the past ten years, numerous assessment systemshave been developed, most based at least to some extentaround the WCPA framework. They vary from simple ques-tionnaire-type approaches suitable for individual protectedareas, through workshop-style approaches aimed at wholeprotected area systems, to detailed monitoring systems.The approach described here is a fairly detailed monitoringand evaluation system, suitable for sites of particularimportance – as should be the case for all natural WorldHeritage sites.

The men and women charged with the responsibility ofmanaging World Heritage sites have little to turn to interms of detailed technical guidance manuals specificallydesigned to help them with the difficult task of ensuringeffective conservation and management of this irreplace-able heritage. This toolkit is intended to help managerswith this task.

9


Context:status and threats

Where are we now?

PlanningWhere do we want to be

and how will we get there?

OutcomeWhat did

we achieve?

InputsWhat do we need?

OutputWhat did we do

and what products or services were produced?

Management process

How do we go about it?

Evaluation

Figure 1: The WCPA Framework for Assessing ManagementEffectiveness.

Note: For more information on the WCPA framework see:Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. and Courrau,J. 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing man-agement of protected areas, (2nd edn) World Commission onProtected Areas, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. The framework can bedownloaded from: http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/pubs/guidelines.htm#effect2

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 9

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 10

11

Carrying out an Assessment

Introducing the assesment to the local community in BwindiImpenetrable National Park, Uganda.

© Marc Hockings

2PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 11

Tool 1: Identifying Site Values andManagement ObjectivesIdentifies and lists major site values and associated man-agement objectives. Together these help decide whatshould be monitored and analysed during the assessment.

Tool 2: Identifying ThreatsHelps managers to organize and report changes in thetype and level of threat to a site and to manage responses.

Tool 3: Relationships with StakeholdersIdentifies stakeholders and their relationship with the site.

Tool 4: Review of National ContextHelps understand how national and international policies,legislation and government actions affect the site.

Tool 5: Assessment of ManagementPlanningAssesses the adequacy of the main planning documentused to guide management of the site.

12

Carrying out an Assessment2

Design / Planning

Adequacy / Appro

priate

nesss

De

liv

ery


Where are we now?



OutcomeWhat did

we achieve?




Management process


12Review of

ManagementEffectiveness Assessment

Results

1Identifying values

and objectives

2Identifying

threats

3Relationship

with stakeholders

4Review of

national context

5Assessing

management planning

6Design assessment

7Management

needs and inputs

8Management processes

9 Management

plan implementation

10 Work / output

implementation

11Outcome assessment

Figure 2.1: Relationship of tools in the toolkit to the WCPA Management Effectiveness Framework.

This chapter outlines the process for carrying out amanagement effectiveness assessment for a WorldHeritage site (or other protected area) using theEnhancing our Heritage process. The bulk of thistoolkit consists of 12 tools for assessing various components of World Heritage site managementeffectiveness that together build a picture of how

well a site is being managed and achieving its objec-tives. Tools can be used to supplement existingassessments or to build a new assessment system.They focus on the main values of the World Heritagesite, identifying appropriate management objectivesand assessing management effectiveness (see Figure2.1 below).

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 12

13

Carrying out an Assessment 2

Tool 6: Design AssessmentAssesses the design of the site and examines how its size,location and boundaries affect managers’ capacity tomaintain site values.

Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needsand InputsEvaluates current staff compared to staff needs and cur-rent budget compared to an ideal budget allocation.

Tool 8: Assessment of ManagementProcessesIdentifies best practices and desired standards for man-agement processes and rates performance against thesestandards.

Tool 9: Assessment of Management PlanImplementationShows progress in implementing the management plan (orother main planning document), both generally and forindividual components.

Tool 10: Work/Site Output IndicatorsAssesses the achievement of annual work programme targets and other output indicators.

Tool 11: Assessing the Outcomes ofManagementAnswers the most important question: whether the site isaccomplishing what it was set up to do in terms of main-taining ecological integrity, wildlife, cultural values andlandscapes, etc.

Tool 12: Review of ManagementEffectiveness Assessment ResultsSummarizes the results and helps to prioritize manage-ment actions in response.

Who is this toolkit designed for?

This toolkit is designed for people who have the responsi-bility for managing World Heritage sites (especially naturalsites), including staff in agencies who may be responsiblefor management of a number of sites. The objective of thetoolkit is to provide both background information and spe-cific tools that can be used to assess management of theirsites. It is also designed for NGO and donor agency per-sonnel who may be working with site managers and assist-ing or encouraging them to develop more robustmonitoring and assessment systems.

While the toolkit has been designed specifically for natural World Heritage sites, the assessment principles,approaches and tools can be applied to other protectedareas with minimal amendment.

Using the assessment tools

It should be noted that:

• The assessment tools are generic, and can be adapted tolocal situations. Sections that do not apply should beomitted. Indicators are suggested for assessment, butsites are encouraged to develop their own where appro-priate. The scale and detail of assessment will varydepending on the time and funds available.

• Tools should be chosen to complement current monitor-ing and assessment systems, rather than replicating sys-tems that are meeting current assessment needs.

• Completing each tool does not have to be a separateexercise, and in many cases several of the worksheetscould be filled in during one workshop.

• Qualitative and descriptive information should beincluded in the worksheet to help new staff understandhow the assessment was carried out.

• Assessors’ information is important to record details ofwho participated and when the assessment was under-taken. This will help with follow-up to the assessmentand is useful for future reference.

• All the assessment tools include space for further narra-tive discussion. This should be used for comments andexplanation as to why an assessment was undertakenand sources of information. There is space for analy-sis and conclusions and comparison with previousassessments. This can help draw out gaps and challenges, opportunities, recommendations and follow-up actions.

Assessments are most useful if repeated regularly to trackchanges to threats and help identify progress and improve-ments. Intervals can vary depending on the managementcomponent being assessed (see Table 2.1). For example,inputs and outputs can be assessed annually (linked withannual reports, work plans and budgets), while contextand outcomes might be assessed every 3-5 years, or linkedwith revisions of the management plan.

Developing the EoH toolkit - discussing the assessment ofoutputs in Serengeti National Park, UR of Tanzania.

© M

arc

Patr

y

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 13

All tools are useful for providing the information neededfor UNESCO periodic and reactive monitoring.

14


Tool

Tool 1:Site values and objectives

Tool 2:Identifying threats

Tool 3:Relationship with stakeholders/ partners

Tool 4:Review of national context

Tool 5:Assessment ofManagement planning

Tool 6:Design assessment

Tool 7:Assessment of manage-ment needs and inputs

Tool 8:Assessment of manage-ment processes

Tool 9:Management plan imple-mentation

Tool 10:Work/site output indicators

Tool 11: Assessing the outcomes ofmanagement

Tool 12: Review of ManagementEffectiveness AssessmentResults

Suggested frequency of use

Every 3-5 years (or followingany major scientific study)

Every 3-5 years (more frequently if monitoring dataon critical threats is available)

Every 3-5 years

Every 3-5 years

Every 3-5 years

Every 3-5 years (or followingmajor changes to parkdesign, e.g. in size, boundaryor tenure )

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Assessment of outcomesevery 3-5 years (monitoringfrequency determined in plandeveloped with this tool)

Every 3-5 years or whenevera complete assessment andreport is produced

Management activities and reporting requirements for which the assessment will provide information

• Development/review of primary planning document (i.e. management plan)

• Development/review of research priorities

• Development/review of management plan• Development/review of research priorities• Major donor funded projects

• Development/review of management plan• Development/review of major stakeholder initiatives (e.g.

resource access arrangements; tourism management plan)

• After providing baseline data this should be used to assessmajor changes, e.g. new legislation/policy, signing internationalconventions or changes to management authority

• After providing baseline data this assessment should be linkedto the development/review/updating of the management plan

• Development/review of management plan• Development/review of research priorities• Development/review of community initiatives/projects• Initiatives related to land tenure• Initiatives related to expansion or decrease of site

• Development/review of budgets• Annual reports/donor funded project reports• Development/review of annual work plans• Any projects related to major changes in the site

(e.g. new infrastructure; additional staffing etc.)• Donor projects putting resources into the site• Development/review of business plan

• Staff reviews• Operational review• Tourism plans• Annual reports/donor funded project reports• Development/review of management plan

• Annual reports• Development/review of annual work plans• Development/review of management plan

• Annual reports• Development/review of annual work plans• Development/review of management plan• Development/review of business plan

• Development/review of management plan• Annual reports/donor funded project reports• Report to other conventions (e.g. CBD, Ramsar,

UNESCO Man and the Biosphere)

• Development/review of management plan• Report to Conventions (e.g. World Heritage, CBD, Ramsar,

UNESCO Man and Biosphere)

Table 2.1: Assessment frequency and links to management and reporting activities

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 14

Who should be involved in the assessment?

Ideally, all those involved in the management of a siteshould take part, including key stakeholder groups. Inpractice, involvement will vary between sites. Generalguidelines are:

• Establish a team to lead the assessment: including bothkey World Heritage site personnel (e.g. the site manager)and other individuals involved in management.

• Stakeholder representatives: for a rigorous assessmentprocess, a team of stakeholder representatives is neededto work with managers to develop and agree upon mon-itoring and evaluation. Local people may have an inti-mate knowledge of a site but often little say in how it ismanaged, yet their views are closely bound-up with thesite’s overall success. Involving partners and local peoplecan increase managers’ understanding of key issues andcan also make communities more supportive of the site.

• Cultural values: natural World Heritage sites also com-monly have cultural and human objectives and the suc-cess of these needs to be assessed.

• Addressing threats: pressures often affect sites from out-side their boundaries. Engaging a range of stakeholdersis important, including, for example, those sections ofgovernment and industry that influence the site.

Stakeholder expectations

The suggested process assumes a high level of stakeholderinvolvement. This includes stakeholders being involved incontributing to and commenting on the assessment and,in many cases, also being actively involved in monitoring toprovide data for the assessment. Stakeholders should beregularly informed about:

• the planning process for monitoring and assessment• their own role in this• opportunities to participate in the assessment• issues that they will be asked about• how their opinions will be used

• how they will be informed on progress and final outcomes

• how results will be used (reporting, adaptive management, etc).

It is important to consider how to manage any conflictsthat may arise during the assessment.

Choosing between self-assessment orusing ‘facilitators’

It may help to involve external facilitators who will beimpartial, bring a new vision, and have expertise in assess-ment. This can take pressure off site managers, for exam-ple, when required to identify weaknesses in governmentpolicy. World Heritage personnel and stakeholders mayhave limited experience of assessment and little time toparticipate. However, external facilitators or volunteersmay have limited knowledge of the site and may beresented by staff.

Involving only those directly involved in management, inother words, carrying out a ‘self-assessment’, will cost lessbut results may lack credibility, especially regarding con-troversial issues. However self-assessment (particularly ifwritten into a management plan) has the benefit ofbecoming a regular part of management, ensuring thatstaff members think about their own performance. Suchassessments may be more readily applied at the site thanthose carried out externally.

One option is to have regular annual ‘internal’ assessmentsof certain management components, with external facili-tators being involved in a review, perhaps every three tofive years.

Developing an assessment process

Before the assessment starts it is useful to develop a planor terms of reference (TORs) for the process which clearlystates:

• the level and objectives of the assessment• who will be involved (including team leaders, World

Heritage staff and stakeholders) • their responsibilities• the timeline • the structure of the final report• the mechanisms for disseminating findings• the mechanisms for incorporating results into

management• how relevant information will be archived.

Choosing the right tools

Once the TORs have been developed, the tools describedhere should be reviewed and a selection made. Sites may

15


Community fish farmers adjacent to Mount Kenya NationalPark and World Heritage site.

© R

obyn

Jam

es

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 15

choose to use all the tools or select only those that sup-plement existing monitoring and assessment. Whethertools need adapting, and how this can be done should alsobe discussed.

Activities involved in an assessment

The assessment is likely to include three activities for eachtool, although these can usually be combined into onecoordinated assessment process.

• Data collection: extracting relevant information frommonitoring reports, research projects, journal articles,management plans, biological surveys and sightingrecords, operational plans, visitor records and stake-holder interviews. Many tools include space for detailingdata that have been used, so that data strengths andweaknesses can be recorded.

• Workshop/s or meetings to compile and verify work-sheets: Workshops can be held early on in the assess-ment process to gather data, compare it with theknowledge and experience of managers, staff and otherstakeholders, and compile draft worksheets. Workshopsheld near the end of the assessment can discuss andrevise draft worksheets or reports. It may be necessary totranslate preliminary assessments into local languages.(See box entitled ‘Stories from the field’ in Keoladeo casestudy for hints and tips on developing stakeholder work-shops.)

• Preparation and dissemination of results: Results can bepresented in several ways, including verbal or writtenreports. In addition to the worksheets, a summary shouldbe prepared describing the process and key issues thatarose. For each recommendation, the agency, departmentor person responsible should be identified. Results need tobe distributed, translated into local languages if necessary,with sections of the report targeted at specific communitygroups (e.g. local farmers or tourism operators).

Main steps in an assessment

Key steps are summarized below and in Figure 2.2

1. Compile relevant existing data.2. Undertake any quick and inexpensive activities needed

to carry out the assessment, e.g. agreeing managementstandards if these do not exist, or analysing threats.

3. Identify monitoring and data gaps that will requirelarger and more costly activities such as long-term mon-itoring programmes.

4. Use data obtained in steps 1 and 2 above, and throughmeetings and consultations, compile and analyse work-sheets.

5. Adapt and improve management in response to theassessment results.

If the site does not have appropriate monitoring pro-grammes for all the issues covered in the worksheets, the

16


Identify gaps in assessment that need more work to address

Use data to compile assessment

Set up steps to fill gaps in monitoring

Complete assessment and analyse results

Carry out management interventions (adaptive management) in response to assessment

Start assessment

Identify gaps in dataAssemble data

Undertake any simple steps to fill data gaps in data

Figure 2.2: Summary of the assessment process.

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 16

assessment will inevitably be incomplete. However, it willstill provide useful management information. As monitor-ing systems are improved, subsequent assessments will beable to draw on better data.

A note on comparison and scoring

The tools presented here have been designed to trackprogress over time in one site, rather than to comparebetween sites. There is therefore no overall score for effec-tiveness, although some tools do use rating schemes as anaid to assessment.

Analysing and acting on the results of theassessment

Assessment information can be used in three ways:

1. By managers to improve their own performancethrough adaptive management (i.e. using informa-tion from past performance to improve future manage-ment). Changes may range from minor adjustments tocurrent management, to larger interventions where theassessment can support funding applications or helpjustify realignment of budget. In turn, changes to man-agement practices can be fed back into future evalua-tions through, for example, revising indicators to reflectnew management directions.

2. To fill gaps in knowledge by improving monitoring andevaluation. Where assessments have not been previ-ously carried out, information from the first assessmentcan provide baseline data for monitoring. Where fund-ing for evaluation is secure, longer-term monitoringmay be possible, especially where evaluations havehighlighted gaps in knowledge.

3. Reporting on the state of natural World Heritagesites. This is a key task for managers. Fulfilling reportingrequirements is much simpler if reliable and detailedmonitoring and evaluation results for a site are at hand.

Keeping a record of the assessmentprocess and results

A lot of information will be collected as part of the processof the assessment. These records should be archived at thesite along with assessment results and notes on process.Data and library material are valuable resources, particu-larly in cases of staff changes.

17


Planning for an assessment of management effectiveness inKeoladeo National Park, India.

© M

arc

Hoc

king

s

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 17

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 18

19

The Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit

Keeping a lookout for poachers at Kaziranga National Park, India.

© Nigel Dudley

3PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 19

The majority of this manual presents the Enhancingour Heritage Toolkit. Each of the twelve tools isdescribed in detail. An introduction to each tool pro-vides background, discusses the purpose of the tool,and gives guidance on the type of information thatmight be required to complete them. Each toolincludes one or more worksheets, which are includedhere with step-by-step guidance.

Electronic versions of the tools can be down-loaded from the World Heritage web site at:http://whc.unesco.org/en/eoh or on a CD availablefrom the UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Other lan-guage versions (initially French and Spanish) of thetoolkit will also be available via the World Heritage site.

Examples of the assessments carried out during thefield-testing of the Enhancing our Heritage projectcan be found at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/eoh

Tool 1: Identifying Site Values andManagement Objectives

This tool helps to identify and list major values of thesite and associated management objectives. Togetherthese provide a basis of what should be monitoredand analysed during the assessment process.

The first step in an assessment of management effec-tiveness is to document the major values of the site.Maintaining these values should be of primary concernand be reflected in the management objectives for thesite. Worksheets 1a and 1b are designed to document themajor site values and to relate these to the principal man-agement objectives. This documentation of values andobjectives should inform the whole management effec-tiveness assessment process and, in particular, create abasis for the development of monitoring programmes(Tool 11).

Values are defined here as the natural, cultural orsocio-economic attributes of the site. They include, inparticular, those values which led to World Heritage listing.Statements of Outstanding Universal Value prepared forthe site are a good place to start when compiling this list.For sites where biodiversity conservation is important,attributes may include:

• Ecological systems: e.g. assemblages of communitiesthat occur together in a landscape/seascape that arelinked by environmental processes.

• Ecological communities: e.g. globally threatened vegeta-tion associations.

• Species: e.g. threatened and endangered species orspecies of special concern; assemblages of species withsimilar conservation needs.

In addition, site values should reflect any cultural, eco-nomic or social attributes that are locally, nationally orglobally important to stakeholders, such as:

• Protection of water catchments and water quality. • Economic benefits to local communities from tourism

and other employment. • Spiritual and/or cultural sites in the area. • Social attributes including intangible aspects such as

pride in the World Heritage area.

Identifying major site values

There are many values present in World Heritage sites. It isnot usually possible to manage for each of these sepa-rately and managers therefore consciously or uncon-sciously have to group these into major site valuesthat can help focus management. In some planningapproaches such as The Nature Conservancy’sConservation Action Planning (CAP) system, these majorsite values are termed Conservation Targets becausethey represent the primary focus for management action.

An understanding of the major site values will help toinform the entire management effectiveness assessmentprocess. In Tool 11, these major values are used to helpselect indicators that will provide an assessment of theextent to which the sites objectives are being maintained.

In the boxes below we give some examples, first for biodi-versity and then for cultural, social and economic values, of

20

The Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit3

Identify major values and their relationship

to World Heritage status

List principal management objectives and relate these to values where appropriate

Review information sources

• Site nomination report

• Statements of Outstanding

Universal Value or Significance

• Management and/or other

planning documents

• Other reports

• Interviews

Identify major values

Figure 3.1: Recommended process for the identification ofvalues and objectives.

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 20

how to select ‘major site values’ from the long list of values that most World Heritage sites embody. In the fol-lowing examples, major site values are highlighted in bold.

Examples of possible major site values for biodiversity Instead of verifying the state of each individual species,this approach proposes selecting a few representativehabitats or species for monitoring. If these remain ingood condition, this implies that management of thesite’s overall ecosystem is satisfactory:

• Values relating to several linked ecological systems areoften a good basis for major site values. For example,fens, lakes, streams, swamp heaths and water qualitycan be incorporated within a single value addressingthe integrity of acidic freshwater systems – on theassumption that the biodiversity within these ecosys-tems will be protected if the acidic freshwater systemsas a whole are conserved.

• Conversely, a major site value can also sometimes berepresented by an individual species that requires arange of ecosystems during its life cycle. For example,a salamander that moves from feeding in ponds tobreeding and nesting in uplands will require the pro-tection and maintenance of a range of ecosystems toensure its survival.

• Major site values can sometimes be identified for aspecies or ecological community causing particular con-cern due to its rare or endangered state. Thus, in theBwindi Impenetrable National Park in Uganda, themountain gorilla - a critically endangered subspecies- represents a major site value for the park.

• Sometimes a major site value is chosen to represent asite’s role as part of wider ecological networks thatdepend on a network of individual sites. For examplemigratory birds could reflect a site’s importanceeither as a nesting site, a feeding point along a migra-tory route or an over-wintering site.

Examples of possible cultural, social, educationaland economic major site valuesThese values are best determined cooperatively withmembers of relevant local and indigenous peoples’communities.

• Cultural values will vary considerably depending onfactors such as the historical, religious and local attrib-utes of the site. Major site values might consist of ele-ments of material culture such as a collection of rockart sites, or non-material culture such as sacred natural sites or culturally significant areas for acommunity.

• Social values are often related to access to the site’sresources, and a range of ‘well-being’ issues such as

subsistence, health (e.g. the existence of medicinalplants) or recreation. Major social values might be represented by factors such as the site’s status as arecreational resource for people from an adjacenturban area, or the availability of forest resources forsubsistence harvesting by local communities. Socialvalues should include the sense of pride people havefor the site. A value is also attached when local peopleare recognized for their contribution to conservationof the area.

• Educational/research values will be important if thesite is aiming to increase local and national under-standing of its values and to promote research. Here amajor site value might be long-term ecologicalresearch if the site, for example, provides a baselineagainst which changes in surrounding areas can beassessed.

• Economic values can be linked to tourism income orother income-generating activities and the extent towhich the site contributes to the local, regional andnational economy. Economic values can also relate toecological services from a site. For example a moun-tainous or forested site may have a major site valuerelating to the provision of water for downstreamirrigation and hydropower.

Identifying principal management objectives

Many sites will already have clear management objec-tives stated in their management plans or other policydocuments and legislation governing management ofthe site. Objectives are commonly organized in a hier-archical manner in management plans, moving frombroad goals to specific actions. The aim here is not tolist every park management objective, but instead tohighlight principal management objectives that represent the most important goals for site managers(some examples are given in the box below).

Examples of possible management objectivesSometimes objectives are closely aligned to values. To refer to some of the examples given earlier, forinstance, broad objectives could include maintainingacidic wetlands, conserving the salamander species,or preserving specific sacred natural sites. In othercases, objectives will necessarily be more specific.Examples might include:

• Restoring mangroves back to their original extentalong a coastal fringe.

• Protecting a colony of cave- dwelling swiftlets.• Working with coastal fishing communities to agree

and implement a set of management arrangementsfor the site.

21

The Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit 3

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 21

• Maintaining a habitat necessary to specific endan-gered migratory wetland species.

• Building an aware and supportive community throughengagement and education.

• Developing community- conserved areas on a specificproportion of the a site’s buffer zone of the site.

Distinguishing between values and objectives

‘Values’ in this case refers to what is important within thesite, whereas ‘objectives’ are concrete management aims.The two should be clearly linked and each major valuewould normally be expected to have an associated objec-tive. The values of the site express why the site is importantto people (i.e. what they ‘value’ about the site), whileobjectives are more specific, relating to what site man-agers wish to achieve over time (i.e. desired managementoutcomes). Objectives can be translated into work pro-grammes through planning processes that specify strate-gies and actions intended to achieve the desired outcomesof management. The values and objectives should act asan aide memoire for the whole assessment system. Whenwe reach the stage of monitoring outcomes of manage-ment – which should reflect whether the core values of thesite are being maintained – it is particularly important toensure that all the most important site values are reflectedin management objectives, which can in turn be translatedinto indicators for long-term monitoring (see Tool 11).Distinguishing between values and objectives seems easy,but in reality frequently causes confusion.

What to do if there are no management objectives

In some cases, sites may lack a management plan, or theobjectives identified in the plan may be incomplete orunclear. This toolkit is not a methodology for developingmanagement objectives and should not be used to replacethe planning process. If management objectives are miss-ing, unclear or inadequate, this indicates a need todevelop or improve the management plan for the site –and management objectives should emerge naturally fromthis process. For example, in the Sangay National Park inEcuador, the initial management assessment undertakenusing this toolkit identified the need to revise the man-agement plan to ensure the objectives better reflected thesite’s values and management challenges. The agreementof key objectives is the cornerstone of site planning andmanagement, and not something that should be rushedthrough hurriedly at the start of an assessment.

Completing Worksheets 1a and 1b

Tool 1 of the toolkit aims to identify the most significantaspects of a World Heritage site in terms of the values it

seeks to maintain. These should be borne in mindthroughout the assessment process. Perhaps most impor-tantly, the status of these values and the achievement ofobjectives can be assessed using the tools suggested in thesection on outcome monitoring (Tool 11).

Worksheet 1a: Identifying major site values andobjectives

1. The worksheet focuses first on identifying the major sitevalues (column 2), arranged according to the subhead-ings given in column 1. These may be narrowed downfrom a longer and more detailed list. Major site valueswill include the World Heritage values for the site, whichcan be obtained from the nomination document orfrom the statement of Outstanding Universal Value.Additional site values may be found in site managementplans and inferred from other source such as scientificliterature, fauna and flora surveys, vegetation mapping,discussions with local communities or other reports andinterviews.

2. Next is a column used to identify which of these valuesare also World Heritage values (column 3) and thus par-ticularly relevant to the assessment. These are also thevalues to be reported on during World Heritage PeriodicReporting. If a particular value corresponds to one ofthe agreed World Heritage values this column shouldalso record the relevant UNESCO World Heritage crite-ria (i to x – using the revised World Heritage criterianumbering scheme) for which the site was nominatedas a World Heritage site (listed on the nomination doc-ument). All the listed World Heritage values shouldappear on the worksheet.

3. The fourth column lists the information sources used todetermine the values, including documentation and/orworkshops held to discuss site values.

4. Space is provided for a narrative analysis of the assess-ment, any changes undertaken since the last assess-ment, identification of gaps and challenges, andfollow-up actions.

Worksheet 1b: Documenting management objec-tives and their relationship to site values

1. All principal management objectives are first listed (column 2) drawing in particular from the site manage-ment plan and other relevant documents; these arethen arranged under the various subheadings shown incolumn 1.

2. These objectives are, wherever possible, linked to specific values, drawn from Worksheet 1a (column 3).There may be more than one value linked to a particu-lar management objective and vice versa.

22


PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 22

3. Sources for the various objectives are given in column 4(e.g. management plans and annual work plans).

4. Space is provided for a narrative analysis of the assess-ment, any changes made since the last assessment,identification of gaps and challenges, and follow-upactions.

Once the draft site values and management objectivesworksheets have been compiled from existing informa-tion, they should be reviewed and validated by experts andstakeholders. Based on comments and feedback, theworksheet can be refined to determine the final list of sitevalues and management objectives.

23


Value subheadings

Values can be broken down intosubgroups as suggested below.Some assessments can be car-ried out using these groupings.

Major site values

List major values here. There aremany specific values present inWorld Heritage sites. It is notpossible to manage each valueseparately. Instead, group theseinto a few major values thatcan help focus managementefforts (see examples in theguidance notes).

Is this a World Heritage value? (list World Heritage criterianumbers)

Note here if a particular value isalso officially recognized in theWorld Heritage nomination doc-ument and identifies the rele-vant World Heritage criterion.There are 10 criteria in theWorld Heritage OperationalGuidelines used as a basis forWorld Heritage listing. WorldHeritage properties will be listedon the basis of one or more ofthese criteria.

Information sources used fordetermining the values

List all information sources suchas the park gazettal notice,World Heritage nomination document, park managementplan, research reports etc. usedin identifying major values.

Biodiversity values

Other natural values

Cultural values

Economic values

Educational values

Other social values

Analysis and conclusions

Comparisons with previous assessments

Gaps and challenges

Opportunities, recommendations and follow-up actions

Worksheet 1a: Identifying major site values and objectives

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 23

24




Gaps and challenges


Principal objectives

List Principal ManagementObjectives (from park manage-ment plan or other source docu-ments) grouped according tothe major values they relate to.

Major values linked to principal objectives

Identify major values related tothis objective (there may bemore than one value related toa principal management objective)

Information sources used for determining objectives

Give the source of the particularobjective (e.g. managementplan, work plan etc)

Biodiversity values

Other natural values

Cultural values

Economic values

Educational values

Other social values

Worksheet 1b: Documenting management objectives and their relationship to site values

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 24

Tool 2: Identifying Threats 2

This tool helps managers to organize and reportchanges in the type and level of threat to a WorldHeritage site and to manage responses.

Reducing and eliminating threats is an important aspect ofeffective management of World Heritage sites. Threatsshould be identified at an early stage of managementplanning, so that monitoring programmes can be devel-oped with appropriate indicators and managers can beguided towards priority management activities.

World Heritage sites often face many threats, which typically have a complex set of causes and impacts (i.e.consequences). To help understand this complexity the fol-lowing tool helps managers to consider the relationshipsbetween the causes and impacts of threats, and also helpsto plan what responses should be put into place urgentlyby concentrating on those threats most likely to impact thesite’s major values.

• Threats are major problems facing a site, such as forestloss or degradation of a coral reef.

• Causes of threats are the various reasons why, to followthe examples above, forest is disappearing (e.g. illegallogging and agricultural encroachment) or coral isdegrading (e.g. tourist over-use, global warming).

• Impacts of threats are knock-on problems that result(e.g. for forests, an impact could be soil erosion or lossof connectivity between forest fragments; for coral reefs,loss of fish species and human well-being impacts fromreduced food sources).

Although this seems at first relatively simple, this work-sheet has proven to be one of the most difficult for sites tocomplete. In particular, there was frequent confusionbetween ‘threats’ and the ‘causes of threats’. The rela-tionship between threats, causes and impacts is outlined inthe figure below.

Separation of the causes and impacts of threats is impor-tant for management because:

• It allows managers to develop better strategies for threatabatement by tackling the actual causes of the threat. Ifthe causes cannot be eliminated entirely, it may be pos-sible to develop management interventions that will helpreduce their impacts.

• As threats can create more than one impact, manage-ment activities can be prioritized according to the causesresponsible for the gravest and most numerous impactsor problems at the site.

Note that this worksheet concentrates mainly on directcauses – which the manager can address on site – ratherthan underlying causes, such as poverty, global trade bal-ance, gaps or inadequacies in national legislation etc.

Threats can also be divided into current threats (some-times called pressures) and potential threats. Potentialthreats could happen, but are not currently taking place.A list of potential threats can be drawn up by consideringthe natural, social, political, cultural, legal and demo-graphic trends at the site that might lead to a negativeimpact. The likelihood of this occurring should be weighedagainst the need for management action, and only thosethat are most likely to happen and will have a significantimpact should be listed. Listing all possible threats wouldrisk diversion of management efforts away from the high-est priority current and potential threats. Listing potentialthreats is particularly important when developing contin-gency plans (i.e. plans for emergency actions to be takenin the event of sudden and serious impacts such as an oilspill).

Completing the Worksheet for Tool 2

1. The first task is to identify the most important threatsthat are affecting or are likely to affect the value/s (column 1). Only those threats that cause particular

25


2. This tool was inspired by TNC’s Five-S Framework for Site Conservation and Richard, M. and Salafsky, N. 2001. Is Our Project Succeeding: a guide tothreat reduction assessment for conservation, Biodiversity Support Program, Washington DC.The full Five-S Framework can be downloaded from: nature.org/summit/files/five_s_eng.pdf. Is our project succeeding can be found at: www.fosonline.org/images/Documents/tra.pdf.For reference purposes assessors may also be interested in reviewing the IUCN/Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) Unified Classifications ofDirect Threats at http://www.conservationmeasures.org/CMP/IUCN/Site_Page.cfm

Causes

Illegal logging

Agricultural expansion

Misuse of fire

Impacts

Loss of connectivity

Soil erosion

Destruction of wildlife habitat

Threats to rare plant species

Threats

Forest loss

Figure 3.2: Relationships between the causes and impacts of threats.

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 25

concern and are likely to have a major impact on sitevalues and achievement of objectives should be listed.It is important to consider the range of values that maybe threatened (e.g. focus not just on threats to biodi-versity, but consider also threats to cultural values orresident human communities).

2. Next, threats are linked to a particular value(s) of thesite (refer back to Worksheet 1a if necessary). Threatsmay also affect more than one value (column 2)

3. These threats can be identified as either current orpotential (column 3).

4. For each threat, the main causes should then be iden-tified (column 4).

5. The status of the threat is then reviewed along withany actions that can be taken to reduce the impact ofthe threat. The worksheet covers four characteristicsof a threat that together summarize its impacts, andthe management actions that can be taken. Providingdescriptive text for all these characteristics will providea richer assessment, however assessors may also wishto make an assessment against a set rating makingfuture assessments easier to compare. Ratings are sug-gested below for the extent and severity of the threatimpacts and the urgency of action, all of which can beadapted to suit the site’s needs. Each of the four stepsis described below.

6. Extent: the extent to which the value is being or islikely to be impacted by the threat is assessed (column5). For biological values this may be measured, forexample, as the proportion of a particular habitatbeing impacted or the proportion of the species’ pop-ulation being affected. For social values, it may be thenumber of community groups or community membersthat are impacted. If a numerical rating of extent isrequired then the following four-point scale could beused: Low (10% or less of the value is threatened);Medium (11-25% of the value is threatened); High(26–75% of the value is threatened); Very High(76–100% of the value is threatened).

7. Severity: the severity of impact caused by the threat isthen estimated (column 6). For example, within theaffected area, will the threat completely destroy thehabitat(s) or will it cause only minor changes? For cul-tural values, will the threat destroy species or places ofcultural significance, or does it threaten local liveli-hoods? A four-point rating scale could be used: Low(within the affected area, the threat is having only aminor or barely detectable impact on the value);Medium (within the affected area, the threat is havinga detectable impact but damage is not considered sig-nificant.); High (within the affected area, the threat

will lead to a significant reduction of the value if it continues to operate at current levels); Very High(within the affected area, the threat is likely to lead toa loss of the value in the foreseeable future if it continues to operate at current levels).

8. Action: the actions planned or which have alreadytaken place to manage the threat are also listed (col-umn 7). These actions can either be directed at elimi-nating or at managing the impacts of the threat.

9. Urgency of action: an indication of the immediacy ofthe threat is given (column 8); for example, is theimpact of the threat likely to become irreversible if notaddressed soon? If a rating is needed then the follow-ing four-point scale could be used: Low (managementaction is not urgent and if action is not taken thethreat will not substantially increase in the medium-term); Medium (the management action is not urgentbut if action is not taken the situation will deterioratein the medium-term); High (action must be taken assoon as possible or the impact of the threat willincrease in the short-term); Very High (immediateaction is needed to stop the threat leading to seriouslong-term or irreversible damage to the value).

10. Data source: finally column 9 should record whetherthe assessment has been made via an expert workshopor the results of monitoring or research.

11. At the end of the worksheet, space has been left toadd Comments/explanation and discuss Comparisonswith previous assessments. Space is also given torecord the Analysis and conclusions, in addition to anyGaps and challenges and Opportunities, recommen-dations and follow-up actions.

26


PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 26

27


List valuesthreatened

List any sitevaluesaffected bythe particularthreat.

Current orPotentialThreat?

Distinguishbetween currentthreatsalready taking placeand potentialknownthreats thathave not yetoccurred.

Identifymajorcauses ofthreat

List activitieswhich arecausing orcontributingto the threat.Each threathas at leastone - andmay have several -causes.

Extent

Describe theextent of theimpact, e.g.area, habitattype, culturalvalue (rate asLow,Medium;High or VeryHigh).

Severity

Describe theseverity ofthe threatimpact onthe value(rate as Low,Medium;High or VeryHigh).

Action

Describewhat actionsare plannedor havetaken placeto managethe threat.

Urgency ofaction

Estimateand/or rateas Low,Medium;High or VeryHigh theurgency ofactionneeded.

Data source

Recordwhether theassessmenthas beenmade viaexpert work-shop or usingresults ofmonitoring,research etc.

Impact of threat

Comments/explanation



Gaps and challenges


Current 1.Potential

Current 2.Potential

1.

2.

1.

2.

Management responseList Threats

List of allimportantthreats

Worksheet 2: Identifying Threats

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 27

Tool 3: Relationships with Stakeholders

This tool helps to identify stakeholders and their rela-tionship with the site.

Effective management usually includes engaging withstakeholders who influence (both positively and nega-tively) the site’s values, and who may be dependent on thesite’s resources. This requires involving parties other thanmanagers in assessment processes to gain additional per-spectives on the World Heritage site and its management.Local communities are a particularly important stakeholdergroup to engage. The following information should be col-lected to identify the relevant stakeholders and place theirrelationship with the site into context:

• Who are the stakeholders?• What is their relationship to the site and its values?• What is their level of engagement and

participation?

In ideal circumstances, the involvement of stakeholders inmanagement and assessment should involve a more par-ticipatory relationship than just consultation. The organi-zation of a workshop with relevant stakeholders isrecommended to identify and review stakeholder involve-ment at the site.

Completing Worksheet 3

The following section proposes one worksheet to assessstakeholder relations; however, some sites may prefer toseparate this into worksheets for stakeholders that relateto individual values or groups of site values (e.g. stake-holders that interact with the site in relation to a particularspecies or all biodiversity values).

Worksheet 3 is presented in the form of a matrix, with dif-ferent stakeholder groups listed in columns, and rows con-taining, first, a series of ten questions regardingstakeholder relations requiring a written response, andsecond, two questions assessing the quality of stakeholderrelations to be answered using a rating system.

1. The first step is to identify all important stakeholdergroups relating to the World Heritage site. This listshould aim to include stakeholders that:

• have an interest/connection with the World Heritagesite, particularly relating to the site’s major values

• have any interaction with the site management• have a current or potential impact on the manage-

ment of the site• are affected by the site’s management.

The list may include, for example: the local population (i.e.indigenous and non-indigenous communities inside andoutside the World Heritage site), municipal and state gov-ernment, armed forces, religious organizations, develop-

ment banks, non-governmental organizations, researchorganizations, development agencies and industry (e.g.logging, mining, large-scale agriculture or fishing).Consider both active stakeholders (i.e. those that are par-ticipating with site managers) and inactive stakeholders(i.e. those not participating). The latter sometimes repre-sent sizeable economic interests (i.e. large-scale resourceusers such as logging companies and fishing fleets), orthose who resent site protection and do not wish to coop-erate with site managers.

From this list, a selection should be made of the mostimportant stakeholder groups who are or should be thefocus of management action at the site (the number willdepend on the site’s management capacity to engage withstakeholders, but is likely to be between five and tenstakeholder groups). These key stakeholder groups arethen listed as columns along the top of the worksheetmatrix.

2. The worksheet requires the identification of the mainways that each stakeholder group interacts with the site(both positive and negative), and their relationship withsite management. This information is divided into tensections, each represented by a row on the matrix.These are described below in more detail:

• Main issues associated with this stakeholder: List themain issues of concern to either the stakeholder groupor the site managers which relate to interactionsbetween the site and the group.

• Dependency of stakeholders on the site: Explain how,and to what degree, the stakeholder group is depend-ent on the site value(s) for their economic well-beingor for other benefits.

• Impacts – Negative impacts of stakeholders: Describethe nature and extent of any direct physical impacts ofthe particular stakeholder group that negatively affectsite value(s). For example, do stakeholders still extractresources from the site such as timber? Note whetherthese are legal or illegal.

• Impacts – Negative impacts on stakeholders: Describeany negative impacts of the World Heritage site on thestakeholder group. For example, were communitiesdisplaced when the site was declared? Are theyexcluded from traditional hunting grounds?

• Impacts – Positive impacts of stakeholders: Describethe nature and extent of any impacts of the particularstakeholder group that positively contribute to thehealth and quality of site value(s). For example, dolocal tourism guides alert rangers to problems? Doessurrounding land use provide connectivity for the site?

• Impacts – Positive impacts on stakeholders: Describeany direct positive benefits of the site to the stake-holder group. For example, does the site provideemployment opportunities for local people? Does aforested area provide catchment protection andimproved water quality for local people? Do tourismventures benefit from the unique site values?

28


PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 28

• Willingness/capacity to engage of stakeholders:Describe the stakeholder group’s willingness to partic-ipate in management of the site value(s), and underwhat terms or conditions this engagement takesplace.

• Willingness/capacity to engage of site management:Describe the site management’s relationship with thestakeholder group. What is the capacity (includingresources) for engagement? (For example, it may bedifficult to engage a large number of stakeholdergroups when the site has limited staff.)

• Political/social influence: Describe the stakeholdergroup’s relative political or cultural leverage or influ-ence on the site value(s).

• Organization of stakeholders: Describe how and towhat degree the stakeholder group is organized, relat-ing to efficient and effective engagement in manage-ment. Are there any specific community institutionsthat facilitate engagement?

3. The final rows are an assessment of the identifiedstakeholder group’s engagement in the site. The first isdescriptive, the second uses a rating system. Theyexamine:

• What opportunities do stakeholders have to con-tribute to management? Describe the nature andextent to which stakeholder groups contribute to deci-sion-making in relation to site value(s). Are there for-mal or informal management agreements in place?

• What is the level of stakeholder engagement?Describe the actual engagement of the stakeholdergroup with regard to management of the specificvalue(s). Are stakeholders regularly consulted regard-ing management of this value? Where possible, pro-vide details of the nature and extent of engagement.Local communities may be 'engaging' with the forestguard on a daily basis, but that does not mean thatthey are in any way contributing to park management,or that their views are being heard.

The stakeholder groups, their impacts and their level ofengagement can be summarized in the last questionusing an overall rating as follows:

• Very good: more than 75% of aspects of the relation-ship are positive

• Good: 51 to 74% of the aspects of the relationship arepositive

• Fair: 26 to 50% of aspects of the relationship are pos-itive

• Poor: 25% or less of the aspects of the relationship arepositive.

This rating exercise can be carried out initially by man-agers, but should ideally be reviewed by the stakeholdersconcerned at a site-level workshop of stakeholders andpartners involved in management of the site.

It is very important to write detailed comments and justifi-cations for ratings and other conclusions given in theassessment. A comparison should be made with any pre-vious assessments to identify whether the situation ischanging. An analysis of the assessment will reveal areaswhere follow-up action is required, and may also identifyareas where relationships are working well. A rating with-out explanation will be meaningless to stakeholders andother staff not involved in the assessment process.

4. A final section at the bottom of the table allows for dis-cussion and analysis of the assessment, identification ofany gaps or challenges that remain, changes since thelast assessment, and overall follow-up actions, opportu-nities or recommendations.

29


Chitwan National Park in Nepal has developed strong relationships with communities living in the buffer zones of the park.

© M

arc

Hoc

king

s

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 29

30


Identify major stakeholders with an interest/connection with the site

List the main issues affecting eitherthe stakeholder group or the site.

How, and to what extent are stake-holder groups dependent on the sitevalue(s) for economic or other benefits?

What is the nature and extent of anynegative physical impacts on sitevalue(s)? For example, do stakehold-ers still extract resources from thesite such as timber? Note whetherthese are legal or illegal.

What are the negative impacts ofthe World Heritage site on the stake-holders? For example, were commu-nities displaced when the site wasdeclared? Are they excluded fromtraditional hunting grounds?

What is the nature and extent of anypositive impacts of the stakeholdergroup on site value(s)? For example,do local tourism guides alert rangersto problems? Does surrounding landuse provide connectivity for the site?

What are any direct benefits of the site to the stakeholder group? For example, does the site provideemployment opportunities for localpeople? Does a forested area pro-vide catchment protection andimproved water quality for local peo-ple? Do tourism ventures benefitfrom the site values?

What is the stakeholder group’sreceptivity to participating in man-agement of site value(s)? Underwhat terms or conditions?

What is site management’s relation-ship with the stakeholder group?

What is the capacity (includingresources) for engagement?

What is the stakeholder group’s relative political or cultural leverageor influence on site value(s)?

How and to what degree is thestakeholder group organized, relat-ing to efficient and effective engage-ment in management?

Are there any specific communityinstitutions that facilitate engagement?

Issues toassess

Main issuesassociatedwith thisstakeholder.

Dependencyof stakehold-ers on site.

List negativeimpacts ofstakeholderson site.

List negativeimpacts of sitemanagementon stakeholders.

List positiveimpacts ofstakeholderson site.

List positiveimpacts of sitemanagementon stakeholders.

Willingness/capacity ofstakeholdersto engagewith site management.

Willingness/capacity of sitemanagementto engagewith stakeholders.

Political/socialinfluence.

Organizationof stakeholders.

Name ofstakeholdergroup




Comments/Explanation

Un

der

stan

din

g S

take

ho

lder

s

Worksheet 3: Engagement of Stakeholders

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 30

31


Identify major stakeholders with an interest/connection with the site

Describe the nature and extent towhich the stakeholder group contributes to decision-making inrelation to site value(s).

Are there formal or informal management agreements in place?

Describe the actual engagement ofthe stakeholder group in the management of the specific value(s).

Are stakeholders consulted regularlyregarding value management?

Where possible, provide details of the nature and extent of engagement.

Based on the information above,provide a brief description of theoverall picture of stakeholderengagement.

Very good: more than 75% ofaspects of the relationship are positiveGood: 51 to 74% of the aspects ofthe relationship are positiveFair: 26 to 50% of aspects of therelationship are positivePoor: 25% or less of the aspects ofthe relationship are positive.






Issues toassess

What opportu-nities do stakeholdershave to contribute to management?

What is thelevel of stakeholder engagement?

Describe theoverall adequacy ofstakeholderengagement.

Rate the overall adequacy ofstakeholderengagement,as either: Verygood, Good,Fair or Poor.

Ass

essm

ent

of

stak

eho

lder

en

gag

emen

tSu

mm

ary

Rat

ing




Gaps and challenges


PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 31

Tool 4: Review of National Context

This tool helps develop an understanding of hownational and international policies, legislation andgovernment actions affect the World Heritage site.

To put the management and management effectiveness of a site into context, it is important to know whether thenational and local government is supportive of the site, andthe degree to which legislation is helping to maintain World Heritage values. This includes an understanding of both whether policies are adequate, if they are being followed through in practice, and a review of the relationshipwith the agencies involved in supporting site management.

These are often difficult questions for site managers toanswer as they may have political connotations (site man-agers may encounter difficulties if they are perceived ascritical of their employers), but it is nevertheless importantto attempt to record this information.


This part of the assessment involves reviewing the contextwithin which the site is managed, including the legal andpolitical context, and the extent of government andagency support for site management, as follows:

1. A series of policy areas are recommended in the work-sheet and other relevant issues can be added depend-ing on the circumstances (column 1).

2. The assessment is made by reviewing the strengths (col-umn 2) and weaknesses (column 3) of each policy area.The questions in the table below provide examples ofthe issues which could be considered in this assessment,but individual sites will often want to add or subtractfrom this list. Although the answers will be qualitative,they provide valuable background information aboutthe conditions in which managers operate.

32


Policy areas

World Heritage site and associated legislation

Conservation within broadergovernment policy

International conservation conventions and treaties

Government support (nationaland local) for the World Heritagesite

Management authority supportfor the World Heritage site

Legislation/policy affecting community participation in sitemanagement and sharing ofbenefits

Questions to guide the assessment

• How adequate is the legislation, i.e. does it provide a strong enough framework topreserve the values of the site?

• To what extent is the legislation used? • Is the legislation effective, i.e. has enforcement of the legislation helped to preserve

World Heritage values?

• How high does conservation rank relative to other government policies, e.g. is therea dedicated ministry?

• Does other government policy relevant to this site contradict or undermine conserva-tion policy?

• Is there a conscious attempt to integrate conservation within other areas of govern-ment policy?

• Are policies implemented, i.e. has the necessary legislation been enacted?

• What international conservation conventions and treaties relevant to the manage-ment of this site has the government signed up to, and how adequately have thesebeen implemented, e.g. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), CITES (Conventionon International Trade in Endangered Species), Ramsar (Convention on Wetlands),Convention on Desertification, etc?

• Are these conventions and treaties reflected in national law?

• How willing is the government to fund the World Heritage site?• Does the government have the capacity to match its willingness in terms of money,

staff, training, equipment, etc?

• What is the relationship between site level staff and the management authority, e.g.what proportion of the authority’s budget goes to field operations? How many timesa year does authority staff visit the World Heritage site?

• Is national legislation and/or policy hampering the involvement of local communitiesin site management?

• Does legislation and policy affect the way communities access the site and itsresources?

• Are there legislative or policy arrangements with regards to benefit sharing?

Examples of the kinds of questions to be addressed in Worksheet 4

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 32

3. The worksheet also provides space to record commentsand explanations which help explain the assessment ofstrengths and weaknesses (column 4).

4. At the end of the worksheet, space is provided to recordan analysis of the assessment and conclusions whichcan be drawn in terms of effective management andany changes since the previous assessment. This is fol-lowed by a section to record gaps and challenges, whichare particularly important in this assessment as it is dif-ficult for managers of individual sites to exert muchinfluence on national or even local policy and legisla-tion. Finally, space is provided to identify opportunities,recommendations and any follow-up actions whichrelate to this assessment.

33


Forest policy can often impact World Heritage site values andmanagement. In the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park in SouthAfrica eucalypt plantations are slowly being cleared andactive rehabilitation is occurring.

© M

arc

Hoc

king

s

Policy areas

World Heritage site and protected area legislation

Conservation within broadergovernment policy

International conservation conventions and treaties

Government support for theWorld Heritage site

Management authority and theWorld Heritage site

Legislation/policy affecting community participation in sitemanagement and sharing ofbenefits

Add additional criteria here

Add additional criteria here

Policy name/description

Describe the specificlegislation/policy/treaties or conventionsfor the site

Strengths

Record how the policy supports management of thesite values/objectives

Weaknesses

Record how the policy can impedemanagement of thesite values/objectives




Gaps and challenges


Worksheet 4: Review of National Policy Context

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 33

Tool 5: Assessment of ManagementPlanning

This tool helps to assess the adequacy of planningused to guide the management of the WorldHeritage site.

Repeated surveys show that protected areas with estab-lished, current management plans are likely to be moreeffective than those lacking plans or with plans that areout of date. It is likely that this situation is the same forWorld Heritage sites.

At their best, management plans can:

• provide clear direction for the site• link management objectives to site values • direct activities and work plans focused on achieving

these objectives• involve stakeholders• be linked to budgets and available resources• have measurable and achievable targets.

This assessment tool helps review the process of develop-ing and applying a management plan. It can help highlightparts of the plan that are working well, and where neces-sary, the parts that may require revision.

There are two worksheets for this tool. Worksheet 5a col-lects information on the extent and status of planningundertaken for the site, listing all the relevant plans andrecording details about them. Worksheet 5b assesses thenature and adequacy of the planning systems andprocesses that have been employed. Where multiple plan-ning documents are employed (e.g. management plan,fire plan, weed plan etc.), Worksheet 5b should concen-trate on the main planning document for the site. This isusually the general management plan, but if none exists,the primary documents used to guide management plan-ning (e.g. annual work plan) should be assessed.


Worksheet 5a: Management planning informationsheet

1. As a first step, it is useful to list the existing and pro-posed planning documents for the World Heritage site(e.g. management plan, zoning plan, specific plans forfire, tourism etc.) in column 1.

2. Next, the level of approval for these plans is recorded -from draft plans with no formal approval to fullyapproved legal documents (column 2) – using a stan-dardized rating system listed in the Worksheet (this can be amended as required to match local country systems).

3. The extent to which the plan is up to date is alsorecorded, including the date of approval or, if still indraft form, the date when the draft was prepared (col-umn 3) and the dates of any recent revisions (column 4).

4. Space is given to record comments on the adequacy andcurrency of the document, and if it is integrated withother planning documents used by the site (column 5).

5. Sections at the bottom of the table provide room to dis-cuss conclusions drawn from this brief assessment,record gaps, and note changes from the last assessmentand next steps.

5b: Adequacy of Primary Planning Document

The second step is to carry out an assessment of the pri-mary decision-making document. This is based on fourprinciples of effective management planning:

• The plan should provide a sound decision-makingframework. In other words, it should provide a clearvision of the desired future for the area based on themajor site values; a set of strategies and actions forachieving this future and clear guidance to assist man-agers in dealing with opportunities and eventualitiesthat arise during the life of the plan; it should provide abasis for monitoring implementation of the plan andprogress towards the desired future and adjustment ofplanning strategies and actions as required.

• The plan should place the management of the area intothe relevant environmental, social and economic plan-ning context. Where possible, planning decisionsshould be integrated into this broader planning frame-work.

• The content of the plan should be formulated within anadequate and current information base and should placemanagement issues within a broader context. The needsand interests of any local and indigenous communitiesand other stakeholders should be considered when for-mulating a desired future for the area.

• The plan should provide a programmed and priori-tized set of actions for its implementation.

Worksheet 5b consists of 14 multiple choice questionsaimed at gathering this information, under the four head-ings explained above. The worksheet contains the follow-ing sections:

1. Column 1 lists the questions to be used for assessingthe extent to which the plan meets these principles.

2. Four possible responses for each question are given (col-umn 2), which equate to a four-point rating system(Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor). These questions andresponses may need to be amended to match the stan-dards and expectations of site planning systems, partic-ularly where a plan other than the management plan isbeing assessed.

34


PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 34

3. Once the most suitable response to a particular questionhas been chosen, the relevant box is ticked (column 3).

4. An explanation of the ranking and any other commentsare given (column 4).

5. The last column is for recording the managementactions (next steps) that are needed, given the results(rankings) of each question.

6. A final section at the bottom of the table allows for anydiscussion and analysis of the assessment, identificationof any gaps or challenges that remain, any changessince the last assessment, and overall follow-up actions,opportunities or recommendations.

35


Name of plan Level ofapproval Level ofapproval (L, G, A, SA, D)*

See key belowfor details of rating system

Year of preparation,or mostrecent review

Year speci-fied for nextreview


Comments should concentrate on the adequacy, currency and integration of the plan with other planning instruments

L = plan has force of law (i.e. has been approved by parliament or is a legal instrument)G = plan has been approved by government but is not a legal instrumentA = plan has been approved at Head of Agency levelSA = plan has been approved at a senior level within the agency D = plan is a draft and has not been formally approved



Gaps and challenges


Worksheet 5a: Management Planning Information Sheet

The development of a new General Management Plan inSerengeti National Park, UR of Tanzania, provided the EoHproject with an ideal opportunity to refine assessment toolsrelating to planning.

© S

ue S

tolto

n

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 35

36


Question

Issue being assessed

1. Does the planestablish a clearunderstanding of thedesired outcomes ofmanagement in clearterms rather than justspecifying actions tobe taken?

2. Does the planexpress the desiredfuture for the site in away that can assistmanagement of newissues and opportuni-ties that arise duringthe life of the plan?

3. Does the plan pro-vide for a process ofmonitoring, reviewand adjustment duringthe life of the plan?

4. Does the plan pro-vide an adequate andappropriate policyenvironment for man-agement of the WorldHeritage site?

Possible responses

Choose one of the four responses, ranked from Very Good to Poor. The questions and responses can be refined to suit individual site needs

Very Good: Desired outcomes are explicitly articulated

Good: Desired outcomes are reasonably articulated

Fair: Desired outcomes are not clearly articulated but areimplied or can be inferred from plan objectives

Poor: Plan focuses more on actions and doesn’t indicatethe desired outcomes for the site

Very Good: Desired future is expressed in a way that provides clear guidance for addressing new issues andopportunities

Good: Desired future is expressed in a way that givessome guidance for addressing new issues and opportunities

Fair: Desired future is not clearly articulated and providesonly limited guidance for addressing new threats andopportunities

Poor: Plan focuses more on present issues and doesn’tprovide guidance for addressing new threats and opportunities

Very Good: Plan provides a clear, explicit and appropriateprocess for monitoring, review and adjustment

Good: Provisions for monitoring, review and adjustmentof the plan are present but are incomplete, unclear orinappropriate in some minor respects

Fair: Need for monitoring, review and adjustment is recognized but not dealt with in sufficient detail

Poor: Plan does not address the need for monitoring,review and adjustment

Very Good: Policy requirements for the site are identifiedand adequate and appropriate policies are establishedwith clear linkages to the desired future for the site

Good: Policy requirements for the site are identified andpolicies are largely adequate and appropriate althoughthere are gaps

Fair: Policies in the plan are inadequate or incomplete inmany respects

Poor: Plan either doesn’t establish policies for the area orpolicies are inadequate or inappropriate in major respects

Rating

Tick box


Add any comments orexplanations as to why theassessment was made

Opportunities, recommendationsand follow-upactions

Discuss any recommendationsor next steps interms of actionswhich need to betaken following thisassessment

Decision-making framework

Planning context

Worksheet 5b: Adequacy of Primary Planning DocumentName of document assessed: ......................................................................

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 36

37


Question

5. Is the plan integrated/linked toother significantnational/regional/sectoral plans thatinfluence manage-ment of the WorldHeritage site?

6. Is the plan based onan adequate and rele-vant informationbase?

7. Have the values forthe site been identifiedin the plan and linkedto the managementobjectives and desiredoutcomes for the site?

8. Does the planaddress the primaryissues facing manage-ment of the WorldHeritage area withinthe context of thedesired future of thesite?

9. Are the objectivesand actions specifiedin the plan repre-sented as adequateand appropriateresponse to theissues?

Possible responses

Very Good: Relevant national, regional and sectoral plansthat affect the site are identified and specific mechanismsare included to provide for integration or linkage now andin the future

Good: Relevant national, regional and sectoral plans thataffect the site are identified, their influence on the site istaken into account, but there is little attempt at integration

Fair: Some relevant national, regional and sectoral plansare identified but there is no attempt at integration

Poor: Other plans affecting the site are not taken intoaccount

Very Good: The information base for the plan is up to dateand adequate in scope and depth, and is matched to themajor decisions, policies and issues addressed in the plan

Good: The information base is adequate in scope anddepth but maybe a little outdated and/or contains irrele-vant information (i.e. a broad compilation of data ratherthan matching information to the decisions, policies andissues addressed in the plan)

Fair: The information base is out of date and/or has inade-quacies in scope or depth so that some issues, decisions orpolicies cannot be placed into context

Poor: Very little information relevant to plan decisions exists

Very Good: The site values have been clearly identifiedand linked to well-defined management objectives anddesired outcomes for the site

Good: The site values have been reasonably identified andlinked to management objectives and desired outcomesfor the site

Fair: The site values have not been clearly identified orlinked to management objectives and desired outcomesfor the site

Poor: The site values have not been identified

Very Good: Plan identifies primary issues for the site anddeals with them within the context of the desired futurefor the site (i.e. plan is outcome, rather than issue-driven)

Good: Plan identifies primary issues for the site but tendsto deal with them in isolation or not within the context ofthe desired future for the site

Fair: Some significant issues for the site are not addressedin the plan or the issues are not adequately addressed

Poor: Many significant issues are not addressed or areinadequately dealt with in the plan

Very Good: Objectives and actions are adequate andappropriate for all issues

Good: Objectives and actions are adequate and appropri-ate for most issues

Fair: Objectives and actions are frequently inadequate orinappropriate

Poor: Objectives and actions in the plan do not representan adequate or appropriate response to the primary issues

Rating Comments/Explanation


...

Plan Content

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 37

38


Question

10. Were local andindigenous communi-ties living in or aroundthe World Heritagesite involved in devel-oping the manage-ment plan and settingdirection for the man-agement of the WorldHeritage site?

11. Does the plan takeaccount of the needsand interests of localand indigenous com-munities living in oraround the WorldHeritage site?

12. Does the plan takeaccount of the needsand interests of otherstakeholders involvedin the World Heritagesite?

13. Does the plan pro-vide adequate direc-tion on managementactions that should beundertaken in theWorld Heritage site?

Possible responses

Very Good: Local and indigenous communities living in oraround the World Heritage site were meaningfully andfully involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the World Heritage site

Good: Local and indigenous communities living in oraround the World Heritage site were partially involved indeveloping the management plan and setting direction forthe World Heritage site

Fair: Local and indigenous communities living in oraround the World Heritage site were involved only mini-mally in developing the management plan and settingdirection for the World Heritage site

Poor: Local and indigenous communities living in oraround the World Heritage site were not involved in devel-oping the management plan and setting direction for theWorld Heritage site

Very Good: Plan identifies the needs and interests of localand indigenous communities and has taken these intoaccount in decision-making

Good: Plan identifies the needs and interests of local andindigenous communities, but it is not apparent that thesehave been taken into account in decision-making

Fair: There is limited attention given to the needs andinterests of local and indigenous communities and littleaccount taken of these in decision-making

Poor: No apparent attention has been given to the needsand interests of local and indigenous communities

Very Good: Plan identifies the needs and interests ofother stakeholders and has taken these into account indecision-making

Good: Plan identifies the needs and interests of otherstakeholders, but it is not apparent that these have beeninto account in decision-making

Fair: There is limited attention given to the needs andinterests of other stakeholders and little account taken ofthese in decision making

Poor: No apparent attention has been given to the needsand interests of other stakeholders

Very Good: Management actions specified in the plancan be clearly understood and provide a useful basis fordeveloping operational plans such as work programmesand budgets

Good: Management actions specified in the plan can generally be clearly understood and provide an adequatebasis for developing operational plans such as work pro-grammes and budgets

Fair: Management actions are sometimes unclear or lack-ing in specificity making it difficult to use the plan as abasis for developing operational plans such as work pro-grammes and budgets

Poor: Management actions are unclear or lacking in specificity making it very difficult to use the plan as a basisfor developing operational plans such as work pro-grammes and budgets



...

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 38

39


Question

14. Does the planidentify the prioritiesamongst strategiesand actions in a waythat facilitates workprogramming andallocation ofresources?

Possible responses

Very Good: Clear priorities are indicated within the planin a way that supports work programming and allocationof resources

Good: Priorities are generally indicated making their usefor work programming and resource allocation adequatemost of the time

Fair: Priorities are not clearly indicated but may be inferredfor work programming and resource allocation

Poor: There is no indication of priorities in the plan so thatthe plan cannot be used for work programming andresource allocation





Gaps and challenges


...

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 39

Tool 6: Design Assessment

This tool assesses the design of the World Heritagesite to examine how its size, location and boundariesaffect its ability to maintain its values.

In many cases, decisions made at the time the site wasestablished will have been influenced by factors such asthe suitability and availability of the land or sea area andvarious social, political and economic constraints. It isimportant to understand how site design impacts on effec-tive site management even though many of the factorsinvolved may be beyond the control of the manager.

Information from this assessment can be used to:

• identify ways in which management effectiveness can beimproved through changes to site design such as overallsize or boundary location

• where the site design itself cannot be changed, identifyhow changes in management could resolve or amelio-rate problems created by poor design

• determine whether agreements with neighbours couldenhance transboundary management so that biodiver-sity conservation and community well-being issues canbe more effectively addressed.


This worksheet can be used to examine three aspects ofsite design:

• Ecological integrity• Community well-being• Management factors (i.e. ease of management of the

site).

Qualitative assessment is used to complete sections foreach of these aspects. The following guidance notes canhelp to ensure that all relevant issues are considered.Assessors should bear in mind the site’s major values whenmaking judgements during the assessment (see Tool 1a).Each section of the worksheet follows the same format,assessing strengths and weaknesses of each of the aspects(these are discussed in more detail below):

1. The relevant major site values are listed at the top of theworksheet, so as to aid focusing on the relevant aspectsof site design.

2. The various design aspects (outlined and explainedbelow) are listed in column 1: sites may wish to add orsubtract from these.

3. Strengths of the World Heritage site design with respectto each design aspect are listed (column 2) along withcorresponding weaknesses (column 3).

4. Comments and explanations regarding the assessmentsare added to column 4.

5. In boxes underneath the worksheet matrix, sources ofinformation are recorded along with an analysis andconclusions, comparison with previous assessments,gaps and challenges and opportunities, recommenda-tions and follow-up actions.

Explanation of the various design aspects for thethree sections listed in Worksheet 6

A number of different design aspects are listed inWorksheet 6 for ecological integrity, community well-being and management factors. These are outlined below.

Ecological integrity

This assessment is based on four major design elements:inclusion of key habitats, size, external interactions andconnectivity.

• Key habitats: Species persistence may be affected by thefailure to include key resource areas required by thespecies within the World Heritage site. Examples includepart of a species’ seasonal range, or refuge areas usedduring periods of environmental extremes (e.g. droughtsand floods).

• Size: Larger sites are more likely to retain viable popula-tions of many species because they can sustain essentialecological processes. They also provide buffering fromedge effects such as weed invasion or pesticide spray.Smaller sites in areas of extensive natural vegetation,however, are effectively part of a much larger site, aslong as the vegetation outside has not been madeunsuitable as habitat. Some small World Heritage sitesestablished for particular species (e.g. localized popula-tions of rare plants) can remain effective for thosespecies if surrounding land use is compatible.

• External interactions: The extent to which the WorldHeritage site interacts with or is influenced by externalfactors is further influenced by three related and inter-acting features of site design: boundaries, shape andadjacent land management. The more compact aWorld Heritage site is, the better its interior is bufferedfrom negative edge effects such as pesticide spray, andweed and feral animal invasion. Sites with long bound-aries relative to their areas will be more vulnerable tosuch outside effects. The influence of shape will be moresignificant in the case of small sites. Land use immedi-ately adjacent to World Heritage sites can have impor-tant effects on some key species and habitats dependingon the size, shape and boundary location of the site. Forexample, cultivation of crops adjacent to a site may leadto killing of native animals that leave the site to feed oncrops, or to contamination from artificial nutrients andpesticides. If the site is small or has a high boundary toarea ratio, the overall viability of the species/habitats inthe site may be threatened by these losses. Continuedavailability of resources such as water may also beaffected by adjacent land use. Diversion of natural waterflows may have serious impacts on ecological integrity ofthe site.

40


PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 40

• Connectivity: Connectivity refers both to continuousconnections or ‘corridors’ between patches of nativevegetation and to the general ‘permeability’ of the land-scape/seascape to allow for movement between patches- if these are not too far apart and the intervening land-scape is not too hostile. Connectivity of an area thereforediffers for different species, depending on their mobilityand behaviour and the nature of the corridors or ‘step-ping-stones’ available. Connectivity determines theextent to which a site is isolated. In the long-term, con-nectivity will affect the ability of communities of speciesto adjust to climate change.

Community well-being

The assessment of design in relation to community well-being is based on four major elements: key areas, size,external interactions and legal status and tenure.

• Key areas: Areas important for local communities interms of supplying resources may lie within the site,which can result in conflict if access to them is not ade-quate or legal. The resources may be cultural, religious oreconomic (e.g. species used for food, medicinal plants,breeding areas of species of cultural or economic impor-tance to the community, sacred natural sites).

• Size: The size of the World Heritage site can affect itspotential to deliver community benefits through the pro-vision of ecological services such as water supplies, ero-sion control, climate amelioration and air quality. Whereexploitation of resources by local communities is permit-ted, the size of the World Heritage site will affect theamount that can be sustainably harvested.

• External interactions: A World Heritage site can affectcommunities if, for example, new social institutions andgovernance arrangements required for its managementundermine traditional community institutions, or if aninflux of foreign visitors affects social and economic con-ditions. The design of the site will affect the extent andsignificance of such interactions.

• Legal status and tenure: Provision or denial of legalaccess to resources traditionally used by local communi-ties is often a major issue. Denial of access can lead to

criminal sanctions if users continue to use the resourcesand often results in conflict between managers and localpeople. Lack of clarity in legal status and tenure canaffect local communities by creating uncertainties in rela-tion to resource access rights. Lack of understanding ofWorld Heritage site significance and management provi-sions can also lead to conflict and misunderstanding.

Management factors

This assessment considers issues relating to legal status,access and boundary issues, as these affect the ease ofmanagement for the World Heritage site.

The assessment of design in relation to management fac-tors is based on three major elements: legal status andtenure, access points and neighbours.

• Legal status and tenure: The legal status of the WorldHeritage site can affect the extent to which managersare able to control activities within the site.

• Access points: Ease of access to the World Heritage site,for example, through roads, affects the ability of man-agers to control entry. It is more difficult to prevent ille-gal exploitation of sites with numerous access pointsthan those with a single access point.

• Neighbours: The location of boundaries may influencethe number and nature of neighbours and the nature ofcross-boundary issues. For example, boundaries that arealigned with natural features in the landscape/seascapemay reduce the need for cooperative management offactors such as fire and feral/problem animals in and outof the site.

41


The boundary of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda.

© M

arc

Hoc

king

s

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 41

42


Design aspect

Key habitats

Size

External interactions

Connectivity

Brief Explanation

Does site contain the key areas needed to conserve species and othernatural values?

Is site large enough to conservespecies and other natural values?

Do external interactions (e.g. adjacentland use) impact on site values?

Can species move easily between thesite and other suitable habitat?

Strengths of WorldHeritage site designin relation to thisaspect

Weaknesses of WorldHeritage site designin relation to thisaspect


Weaknesses ofWorld Heritage sitedesign in relation tothis aspect


Sources of information



Gaps and challenges


1. Ecological integrityThis relates to the major biodiversity and other natural values (refer to Tool 1a for a list of these major values):

Design aspect

Key habitats

Size

External interactions

Legal status and tenure

Brief Explanation

Do local communities have access tokey areas of cultural, religious or economic importance?

Is the site large enough to deliver ecological services or support sustain-able harvesting (if permitted)?

Does the management of the siteimpact on local community functioning?

Are legal status and rights clear? Do conflicts impact on the community?

Strengths of WorldHeritage site design inrelation to this aspect




Gaps and challenges


2. Community well-beingThis relates to major cultural, economic, educational and other social values and other community/site issues important to the well-being of the community (refer to Tool 1a for a list of these values):

Worksheet 6: Design Assessment

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 42

43


Weaknesses ofWorld Heritage sitedesign in relation tothis aspect


Design aspect

Legal status and tenure

Access points

Neighbours

Brief Explanation

Do problems or uncertainties overlegal status or tenure affect capacity tomanage?

Does lack of control over access to the site impact on management effectiveness?

Does the location and nature ofboundaries support or impede management?

Strengths of WorldHeritage site design inrelation to this aspect




Gaps and challenges


3. Management factorsThis relates to the practicalities of management of the site (e.g. legal status, access for patrols and boundary issues with neighbours):

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 43

Tool 7: Assessment of ManagementNeeds and Inputs

This tool helps to evaluate current staffing comparedto staff needs and current budget compared to thebudget required for effective management.

The input assessment considers the resources that arerequired for effective management of the site, and meas-ures these against the resources available. Estimation ofneeds allows identification of shortfalls in staff, funds andequipment in relation to planned management activities.More objective estimations of needs can strengthen pro-posals for funding from government, donors and othersources of support. Information on the extent and ade-quacy of resources available for management allowschanges in staff and resource availability to be tracked overtime.

The following worksheets can be used to assess gaps inresources and identify the places where available resourcesare most needed. Worksheet 7a examines staff needs(both numbers and training) and Worksheet 7b assessescurrent budget (and its sources) against funds required.Additional worksheets can be developed to look at otherspecific infrastructure or resource needs if required.

A more detailed input assessment can be carried out bydeveloping a financial or business plan for the site. Thiswould include management needs, inputs received andexpected, and a balance analysis. Ideally, the plan shouldbe prepared for an extended period (for example, fiveyears). Advice on business planning for World Heritage sitemanagers can be found in the UNESCO/Shell FoundationBusiness Plan Toolkit.


The first step is to undertake a needs assessment bygathering information about what resources are requiredfor the management of a site. The management plan (orother primary planning document) should set out the site’sobjectives (see Worksheet 1a). Generally, managers thenuse this framework to develop annual work or operationalplans that form the basis for day-to-day decision-makingon the actions and strategies to be undertaken.

The second step is to compile information on availableresources (staff, equipment, infrastructure and funding)and to assess these in relation to the achievement of man-agement objectives.

Assessment of budgetary and staff training needs shouldbe undertaken within the context of a thorough under-standing of site management requirements. The informa-tion from other assessment tools could be used to guidesuch a needs assessment. It is important that this assess-ment takes a broad view. For example, budget allocation

and staff training may be required to address social issues,but these are often ignored in sites where staff is focusedon biological conservation.

Worksheet 7a: Assessment of Management Needsand Inputs for Staff

The first worksheet looks specifically at staffing needs, interms of numbers and expertise. The worksheet has beendeveloped by the Ugandan Wildlife Authority as a contri-bution to the Enhancing our Heritage project. The stepsneeded to complete the worksheet are as follows:

1. All staff categories, i.e. full-time and part-time, paid,voluntary and seasonal, should be listed (column 1).

2. Location of staff should be listed, e.g. whether they arebased on site or at head office. In some cases differentstaff members within a single category will be located inseparate places; this should be noted (column 2).

3. The results of the needs assessment should be recordedagainst different staff categories, i.e. how many seniormanagers, rangers, community liaison officers etc areneeded (column 3).

4. Current number of staff members per category is thenlisted in column 4.

5. The number of trained staff in each category is given incolumn 5.

6. The type of training required for different categories isthen stated (column 6).

7. An estimation of the degree of training is also given (col-umn 7). Ideally standards should be developed againstwhich to assess the level of training, for example:

• Very Good: more than 75% of staff are trained to anadequate level to carry out the activities required

• Good: 50% - 75% of staff is trained to an adequatelevel to carry out the activities required

• Fair: between 25% and 50% of staff is trained to anadequate level to carry out the activities required

• Poor: less than 25% of staff is trained to an adequatelevel to carry out the activities required.

8. Finally, any relevant comments and explanations aregiven in column 8.

9. In boxes immediately underneath the worksheet, spaceis available to give any information available aboutsources, analysis and conclusions, comparison with earlier assessments, gaps and challenges and furtheropportunities. Management decisions in terms of fillinggaps in staffing requirements and/or training should bediscussed in this section.

44


PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 44

Similar worksheets could be developed for other manage-ment needs and inputs, such as equipment.

Worksheet 7b: Assessment of Management Needsand Inputs for Budgets

Worksheet 7b assesses funding needs against actualbudgets and can be completed using existing budgetingprocesses and systems. If a site has a single source ofinputs, this assessment is relatively straightforward.However, many sites receive inputs from several sources,for example, government, NGOs, private sector anddonors, sometimes on multi-year cycles, making theassessment more complex - particularly if some inputs arein the form of funding and others in-kind. Steps involvedin completing the worksheet include:

1. Expenditure categories should be listed. These shouldbe divided up in the same way as the annual budget(column 1).

2. Budget requirements are then outlined, drawing on theneeds assessment referred to above (column 2).

3.The actual budget for a particular expenditure categoryis then given (column 3), stating the period of thebudget (i.e. the start and finish date of the budget cycle):in sites with multiple funding sources not all budgetcycles will match exactly.

4. Funding sources are identified and listed by the relevantcategories (column 4).

5. Comments are included (column 5), for example,regarding the long-term security of different budgetlines, remaining questions and uncertainties etc.

6. In the boxes immediately beneath the worksheet, spaceis available to give any information available aboutsources, analysis and conclusions, comparison with earlier assessments, gaps and challenges and furtheropportunities.

45


The annual maintenance of walking paths is a major task inthe Blue Mountains World Heritage site in Australia.

© S

ue S

tolto

n

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 45

Expenditure category

These categories should relate tothe categories used for the site’sannual budget

Budget required

Record requirementshere (details of howthe assessment wascarried out should begiven in the commentsor sources columns)

Actual budget available

Provide details onbudget available andperiod (i.e. June 2006to June 2007)

Funding source(s)

Give details on wherefunding comes from,e.g. government funds,NGO projects, etc.


Provide details on howinformation given inprevious columns hasbeen determined

46


Staff category

List staffpositions,including allcategories ofpermanentand tempo-rary staff

Location

Identifywhere staffare posted(in somecases therewill be morethan onelocationwithin a particularcategory)

Requiredno. of staff

Estimate theideal numberof staff inthis category

Current no. of staff

Give currentnumber ofstaff

No. oftrainedstaff

Identify theproportion of staff whoare trained in each category

Type of trainingrequired

Detail the type of trainingrequired

- Very Good: more than75% of staff is trained to an adequate level tocarry out the activitiesrequired- Good: 50% - 75% ofstaff is trained to an ade-quate level to carry outthe activities required- Fair: between 25% and50% staff is trained to anadequate level to carryout the activities required- Poor: less than 25% ofstaff is trained to an ade-quate level to carry outthe activities required.


Give details ofhow the assess-ment was made,i.e. how requiredstaffing was calculated

Poor

Fair

Goo

d

Very

G

ood

Level of Training




Gaps and challenges





Gaps and challenges


Worksheet 7a: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Staff

Worksheet 7b: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Budgets

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 46

Tool 8: Assessment of ManagementProcesses

This tool helps managers to identify the best practicesand desired standards in relation to managementprocesses, and to rate performance in terms of appro-priateness and adequacy against these standards.

The use of the best possible management practices isessential for effective site management, and regularassessment can identify ways in which practices can beimproved. The process assessment thus asks:

• Are the best systems and standards of managementbeing followed?

• Are agreed policies and procedures in place and beingfollowed?

• How can management practices be improved?

The starting point is to define the desired standards foreach management issue. Worksheet 8a is a multiple-choice questionnaire, with each answer leading to a ratingthat can be added to produce a total. A set of standards isimplicit in the various responses in Worksheet 8a, whichcan be used without modification. However, sites maywish to refine the standards to better reflect standards thatapply at local or regional levels.

The indicator ratings help to gauge the standard of currentmanagement practices. If assessments are carried out atintervals, these provide a means to measure improvementin management systems and processes. The rating systemis not designed to compare between World Heritage sites,but rather to track progress of individual sites. The ratingsheet can help to determine if the best management stan-dards are being followed and to identify areas where man-agement can be improved. The scores are summarized inWorksheet 8b.

The various responses associated with the ratings (fromVery Good to Poor) can be amended where required. Atthe Very Good level, the response should define the way inwhich management should be conducted if there were noconstraints arising from deficiencies in funding, staffingnumbers, staff skills, or other aspects of management.Information on best practices (where available) combinedwith professional experience and knowledge of local cir-cumstances can be used to establish desired standards. Inmost cases, standards will be descriptive, that is, qualita-tive rather than quantitative, The assessment againstdesired standards will, therefore, also be a qualitativeprocess. The development of standards and the assess-ment of performance against them should ideally be a par-ticipatory process, involving not just the World Heritagesite manager and staff, but also community representa-tives, external experts and other stakeholders.


Worksheet 8a: Assessment of ManagementProcesse

The assessment should compare management against the desired standards using Worksheet 8a, adapted asnecessary.

1. A series of 29 different management areas have beenidentified and listed in column 1. These managementareas have been grouped under four overall manage-ment topics (Management structures and systems,Resource management, Management and tourism and Management and communities/neighbours).Suggestions are given and can be added to or changedfor individual World Heritage sites.

2. Four possible responses, with associated ratings, aregiven for each of the management areas: these describedifferent degrees of achievement in reaching the partic-ular standard (column 2). The suggested ratings rangefrom ‘Very Good’, where the desired standard (definedin the column headed criteria) has been met, to ‘Poor’where there has been complete failure to meet thedesired standard. For example, success in reaching astandard for equipment/facility maintenance could beassessed as follows:

• Very good: All equipment/facilities are regularlymaintained, i.e. the standard has been met

• Good: Most equipment/facilities are regularlymaintained

• Fair: Maintenance is only undertaken when equip-ment/facilities are in need of repair

• Poor: Little or no maintenance of equipment/facili-ties is undertaken.

3.Once the most appropriate answer has been selected,the equivalent box is ticked in column 3 to give the rat-ing for a particular management area.

47


Ensuring equipment is well maintained is a vital life line forremote sites like Aldabra Atoll in the Seychelles.

© S

ue S

tolto

n

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 47

Rating

Add the ratinghere

4.For each standard/management area assessed, notesshould be made in the comment/explanation column(column 4) regarding the reasons for the ranking. Futureactions should be listed in the opportunities, recom-mendations and follow-up actions column (column 5).It is important to recognize that some aspects of man-agement are beyond the control of managers, whoshould therefore not be held accountable for relatedshortcomings.

Worksheet 8b: Assessment of ManagementProcesses: Summary

A summary sheet (Worksheet 8b) provides the opportunityto give an overall view of the effectiveness of managementprocesses.

1. The summary sheet suggests grouping the manage-ment issues according to the four overall topics identi-fied in Tool 8a: Management structures and systems;Resource management; Management and tourism and

Management and communities/neighbours (column 1).However, the groupings can be determined on a case-by-case basis according to questions developed for theworksheet.

2. Individual questions are listed in column 2 and the rat-ing is summarized in column 3.

3. The assessment can be summarized by adding the dif-ferent ratings (Poor, Fair, Good and Very Good) for eachgroup of management activities, thereby giving a pic-ture of where the strengths and weaknesses of man-agement processes lie (for example, the summary mightshow that resource management is generally quitegood, whereas management for tourism is poor).

4. At the end of this section, room is provided to discussgaps and challenges identified in the assessment,changes since the last assessment, and analysis andconclusions.

48


Management area

Management standards relevant to the site

1. World Heritagevalues

Have values beenidentified and arethese linked to man-agement objectives?

2. Managementplanning

Is a plan and is itbeing implemented?

Possible responses

Four responses are given which describe best practice in relation to the management standard and which can be rated from Very Good to Poor. Choose the onemost appropriate to the situation in the World Heritagesite.

Very Good: The World Heritage site has agreed and documented values and the management objectives fullyreflect these

Good: The World Heritage site has agreed and docu-mented values, but these are only partially reflected inthe management objectives

Fair: The World Heritage site has agreed and docu-mented values, but these are not reflected in the man-agement objectives

Poor: No values have been agreed for the WorldHeritage site

Very Good: An approved management plan exists and isbeing fully implemented

Good: An approved management plan exists, but it isonly being partially implemented because of fundingconstraints or other problems (please state)

Fair: A plan is being prepared or has been prepared butis not being implemented

Poor: There is no plan for managing the World Heritagesite


Add details of why theassessmentwas made

Include detailsof the type ofplanninginstrumentbeing used(i.e. 10-yearmanagement)


Discuss future actionsthat may, if necessary,improve performancerelating to this management issue

Management structures and systems

Worksheet 8a: Assessment of Management Processes

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 48

49


RatingManagement area

3. Planning systems

Are the planning sys-tems appropriate,i.e. participation,consultation, reviewand updating?

4. Regular workplans

Are there regularwork plans or otherplanning tools?

5. Monitoring andevaluation

Are managementactivities monitoredagainst perform-ance?

6. Reporting

Are all the reportingrequirements of theWorld Heritage sitefulfilled?

7. Maintenance ofequipment

Is equipment ade-quately maintained?

Possible responses

Very Good: Planning and decision-making processes areexcellent

Good: There are some planning and decision-makingprocesses in place, but they could be better, either interms of improved processes or processes being carriedout

Fair: There are some planning and decision-makingprocesses in place, but these are either inadequate or arenot carried out

Poor: Planning and decision-making processes are defi-cient in most aspects

Very Good: Regular work plans exist, actions are moni-tored against planned targets, and most or all prescribedactivities are completed

Good: Regular work plans exist and actions are moni-tored against planned targets, but many activities areincomplete

Fair: Regular work plans exist but activities are not moni-tored against the plan’s targets

Poor: No regular work plans exist

Very Good: A good monitoring and evaluation systemexists, is well implemented, and used for adaptive man-agement

Good: There is an agreed and implemented monitoringand evaluation system of management activities, butresults are not systematically applied to management

Fair: There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation ofmanagement activities, but no overall strategy and/or noregular collection of results

Poor: There is no monitoring and evaluation of manage-ment activities in the World Heritage site

Very Good: Site managers fully comply with all reportingneeds and have all the necessary information for full andinformative reporting

Good: Site managers fully comply with all reportingneeds, but do not have all the necessary information forfull and informative reporting

Fair: There is some reporting, but all reporting needs arenot fulfilled and managers do not have all the necessaryinformation on the site to allow full and informativereporting

Poor: There is no reporting on the World Heritage site

Very Good: Equipment and facilities are well-maintainedand an equipment maintenance plan is being implemented

Good: There is basic maintenance of equipment andfacilities. If a maintenance plan exists it is not fully implemented

Fair: There is some ad hoc maintenance, but a mainte-nance plan does not exist or is not implemented

Poor: There is little or no maintenance of equipment andfacilities, and no maintenance plan


Include detailsof the type ofplanninginstrumentbeing used(i.e. annualwork plan,tourism plan)


Consider opportunitiesfor adjacent landholdersand stakeholders toinfluence managementplanning, and whetherdetails of the schedule,process for periodicreview and updating ofthe management planexist.

...

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 49

50



8. Major infrastructure

Is managementinfrastructure (e.g.roads, offices, firetowers) adequate forthe needs of thesite?

9. Staff equipmentand facilities

Are the availablefacilities (e.g. vehi-cles, GPS, staffaccommodation)suitable for the man-agement require-ments of the site?

10. Staff/management communication

Do staff have theopportunity to feedinto managementdecisions?

11. Personnel management

How well are staffmanaged?

12. Staff training

Are staff adequatelytrained?

13. Law enforcement

Do staff have thecapacity to enforcelegislation?

Possible responses

Very Good: Management infrastructure is excellent andappropriate for managing the site

Good: Management infrastructure is adequate and gen-erally appropriate for the site

Fair: Management infrastructure is often inadequateand/or inappropriate for the site

Poor: Management infrastructure is inadequate and/orinappropriate for the site

Very Good: Staff facilities and equipment at the WorldHeritage site are good and aid the achievement of theobjectives of the site

Good: Staff facilities and equipment are not significantlyconstraining achievement of major objectives

Fair: Inadequate staff facilities and equipment constrainachievement of some management objectives

Poor: Inadequate staff facilities and equipment meanthat achievement of major objectives is constrained

Very Good:Staff directly participate in making decisionsrelating to management of the site at both site and man-agement authority level

Good: Staff directly contribute to some decisions relatingto management

Fair: Staff have some input into discussions relating tomanagement, but no direct involvement in the resultingdecisions

Poor: There are no mechanisms for staff to input intodecisions relating to the management of the WorldHeritage site

Very Good: Provisions to ensure good personnel man-agement are in place

Good: Although some provisions for personnel manage-ment are in place, these could be improved

Fair: There are minimal provisions for good personnelmanagement

Poor: There are no provisions to ensure good personnelmanagement

Very Good: Staff training and skills are appropriate forthe management needs of the site, and for anticipatedfuture needs

Good: Staff training and skills are adequate, but couldbe further improved to fully achieve management objectives

Fair: Staff training and skills are low relative to the man-agement needs of the site

Poor: Staff lack the skills/training needed for effectivesite management

Very Good: The staff have excellent capacity/resourcesto enforce legislation and regulations

Good: The staff have acceptable capacity/resources toenforce legislation and regulations, but some deficienciesremain


Include detailsof the types ofpersonnelmanagementsystems thatare in place

Include infor-mation, forexample, onwhat happensif people arearrested


For example, jobdescriptions, staffappraisals, grievanceprocedures, promotionplans, insurance

For example, lack ofskills, no patrol budget,staff management problems

...

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 50

51



14. Financial management

Does the financialmanagement systemmeet critical man-agement needs?

15. Managingresources

Are there manage-ment mechanisms inplace to controlinappropriate landuses and activities(e.g. poaching)?

16. Resource inventory

Is there enoughinformation to manage the WorldHeritage site?

17. Research

Is there a pro-gramme of manage-ment-orientatedsurvey and researchwork?

Possible responses

Fair: There are major deficiencies in staffcapacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations

Poor: The staff have no effective capacity/resources toenforce legislation and regulations

Very Good: Financial management is excellent and contributes to effective management of the site

Good: Financial management is adequate but could beimproved

Fair: Financial management is poor and constrains effectiveness

Poor: Financial management is poor and significantlyundermines effectiveness of the World Heritage site

Very Good: Mechanisms for controlling inappropriateland use and activities in the World Heritage site existand are being effectively implemented

Good: Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate landuse and activities in the World Heritage site exist, butthere are some problems in effectively implementingthem

Fair: Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land useand activities in the World Heritage site exist, but thereare major problems in implementing them effectively

Poor: There are no management mechanisms for con-trolling inappropriate land use and activities in the WorldHeritage site

Very Good: Information on the critical habitats, speciesand cultural values of the World Heritage site is sufficientto support planning and decision-making and is beingupdated

Good: Information on the critical habitats, species andcultural values of the World Heritage site is sufficient forsome areas of planning/decision making and plans exist(e.g. research and monitoring) to fill data gaps

Fair: Some information is available on the critical habi-tats, species and cultural values of the World Heritagesite, but this is insufficient to support planning and deci-sion-making and further data gathering is not being car-ried out

Poor: There is little or no information available on thecritical habitats, species and cultural values of the WorldHeritage site

Very Good: There is a comprehensive, integrated pro-gramme of survey and research work, which is relevantto management needs

Good: There is considerable survey and research workdirected towards the needs of World Heritage site man-agement

Fair: There is limited survey and research work directedtowards the needs of World Heritage site management.

Poor: There is no research taking place directed towardsthe needs of World Heritage site management


Include detailson whetheraudits are reg-ularly carriedout

Detail whichareas (i.e. criti-cal habitats,species and/orcultural values) haveeither suffi-cient or deficientinformationresources.


For example, the timelyrelease of funds for thefinancial year

...

Resource management

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 51

52



18. Ecosystems andspecies

Is the biodiversity ofthe World Heritagesite adequately man-aged?

19. Cultural/historical resourcemanagement

Are the site’s culturalresources adequatelymanaged?

20. Visitor facilities

Are visitor facilities(for tourists, pilgrimsetc) adequate?

21. Commercialtourism

Do commercial touroperators contributeto World Heritagesite management?

22. Visitor opportunities

Have plans beendeveloped to providevisitors with themost appropriateaccess and diversityof experience whenvisiting the WorldHeritage site?

Possible responses

Very Good: Requirements for management of criticalecosystems and species are being substantially or fullyimplemented

Good: Requirements for management of critical ecosys-tems and species are only being partially implemented

Fair: Requirements for management of critical ecosystemsand species are known, but are not being implemented

Poor: Requirements for management of critical ecosys-tems and species have not been assessed and/or activemanagement is not being undertaken

Very Good: Requirements for management ofcultural/historical values are being substantially or fullyimplemented

Good: Requirements for management of cultural/histori-cal values are only being partially implemented

Fair: Requirements for management of cultural/historicalvalues are known, but are not being implemented

Poor: Requirements for management of cultural/histori-cal values have not been assessed and/or active manage-ment is not being undertaken

Very Good: Visitor facilities and services are excellent forcurrent levels of visitation

Good: Visitor facilities and services are adequate for cur-rent levels of visitation but could be improved

Fair: Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate forcurrent levels of visitation

Poor: There are no visitor facilities and services despitean identified need

Very Good: There is good cooperation between man-agers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experi-ences and protect site values

Good: There is limited cooperation between managersand tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences andprotect site values

Fair: There is contact between managers and tourismoperators, but this is largely confined to administrative orregulatory matters

Poor: There is little or no contact between managers andtourism operators using the World Heritage site

Very Good: Implementation of visitor management poli-cies and programmes is based on research and monitor-ing into visitor use and requirements and the carryingcapacity of the World Heritage site

Good: Policies and programmes to enhance visitoropportunities are being implemented, but these are notbased on research and monitoring of visitor use andrequirements

Fair: Consideration has been given to policies and pro-grammes to enhance visitor opportunities, but little or noaction has been taken

Poor: No consideration has been given to the provisionof visitor opportunities to the World Heritage site



...

Management and tourism

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 52

53



23. Education and awarenessprogramme

Is there a plannededucation pro-gramme thataddresses all audi-ences (i.e. local communities as wellas visitors)?

24. Access

Is visitor access suffi-ciently controlled? (For example,through patrols, andpermits etc.)

25. Local communities

Do local communi-ties resident in ornear the WorldHeritage site haveinput to manage-ment decisions?

26. Indigenous people

Do indigenous andtraditional peoplesresident in or regu-larly using the sitehave input to man-agement decisions?

27. Local people’swelfare

Are there pro-grammes developedby the WorldHeritage managersthat consider localpeople’s welfarewhilst conserving thesites resources?

Possible responses

Very Good: There is a planned, implemented and effec-tive education and awareness programme fully linked tothe objectives and needs of the World Heritage site

Good: There is a planned education and awareness pro-gramme, but there are still serious gaps either in the planor in implementation

Fair: There is a limited and ad hoc education and aware-ness programme, but no overall planning

Poor: There is no education and awareness programme

Very Good: Visitor management systems are largely orwholly effective in controlling access to the site in accor-dance with objectives

Good: Visitor management systems are moderatelyeffective in controlling access to the site in accordancewith objectives

Fair: Visitor management systems are only partially effec-tive in controlling access to the site in accordance withobjectives

Poor: Visitor management systems are ineffective in con-trolling access to the site in accordance with objectives Management and communities/neighbours

Very Good: Local communities directly and meaningfullyparticipate in all relevant management decisions for thesite

Good: Local communities directly contribute to some rel-evant management decisions, but their involvementcould be improved

Fair: Local communities have some input into discussionsrelating to management, but no direct involvement indecision-making

Poor: Local communities have no input into decisionsrelating to the management of the World Heritage site

Very Good: Indigenous and traditional peoples directlyparticipate in all relevant management decisions for thesite

Good: Indigenous and traditional peoples directly con-tribute to making some relevant management decisions,but their involvement could be improved

Fair: Indigenous and traditional peoples have some inputinto discussions relating to management, but no directinvolvement in decision-making

Poor: Indigenous and traditional peoples have no inputinto decisions relating to the management of the site

Very Good: Programmes to enhance local, indigenousand/or traditional peoples’ welfare, while conservingWorld Heritage site resources, are being implementedsuccessfully

Good: Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/ortraditional peoples welfare, while conserving WorldHeritage site resources, are being implemented, butcould be improved



...

Management and communities/neighbours

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 53


54



28. State and commercial neighbours

Is there cooperationwith neighbouringland/sea owners andusers?

29. Conflict resolution

If conflicts betweenthe World Heritagesite and stakeholdersarise, are mecha-nisms in place tohelp find solutions?

Possible responses

Fair: Programmes exist to enhance local, indigenousand/or traditional peoples welfare, while conservingWorld Heritage site resources, but are either inadequateor are not being implemented

Poor: There are no programmes in place which aim toenhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare

Very Good: There is regular contact between managersand neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users,and substantial cooperation on management

Good: There is contact between managers and neigh-bouring official or corporate land/sea users, but onlysome cooperation on management

Fair: There is contact between managers and neighbour-ing official or corporate land/sea users, but little or nocooperation on management

Poor: There is no contact between managers and neigh-bouring official or corporate land/sea users

Very Good: Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist andare used whenever conflicts arise

Good: Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist, but areonly partially effective

Fair: Conflict resolution mechanisms exist, but are largelyineffective

Poor: No conflict resolution mechanisms exist


...

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 54

55


Management area

Management structures and systems

Resource management

Management and tourismManagement and communities/neighbours

Question

1234567891011121314

1516171819

2021222324

2526272829

Rating Distribution of rating

Very Good:Good:Fair:Poor:




Comparisons with last assessments

Gaps and challenges


Worksheet 8b: Assessment of Management Processes: Summary

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 55

Tool 9: Assessment of Management PlanImplementation

This tool aims to show progress in implementingthe management plan (or other primary planningdocument).

The assessment of management plan implementationconsists of reviewing each action specified in the plan andassigning it to a status category (e.g. from ‘Action has notcommenced’ to ‘Action has been completed’). The assess-ment provides a way of verifying that annual programmesare being developed around the management plan.Ideally, the assessment should be carried out each year aspart of the process of developing work programmes.


Worksheet 9 provides an outline of the recording systemrequired to complete this assessment. However, an Excelspreadsheet can be used to record the status of eachaction and these then summarized by plan component aswell as for the plan as a whole, using easy to understandgraphics (examples are given below). An electronic tool,ParkPlan, has also been developed by the Enhancing ourHeritage project specifically to carry out this type of assess-ment (see box below).

1. The tool assesses implementation both generally, and atthe level of individual components of the plan.‘Component’ here refers to the main divisions or sec-tions within the management plan (i.e. tourism man-agement programme, administration or financialmanagement). These may be labelled as ‘sections’,‘management programmes’ or similar terminology. Thefirst step in the assessment, therefore, is to record thevarious components of the plan in column 1.

2. The assessment consists of reviewing each action spec-ified in the plan and assigning to it a status category.This assessment should be carried out each year as partof the process of developing annual works pro-grammes. It provides a way of checking that annual pro-grammes are being developed around the managementplan specifications.

3. A set of 6 status codes is suggested below, but thesecodes can be revised to suit local circumstances:

• Status Code 1: Action has not commenced• Status Code 2: Work on implementation of action is

only reactive and not to a set plan• Status Code 3: Planning for implementation of action

is in progress• Status Code 4: Some work has commenced in all or

some areas (i.e. policy and/or planning stages are com-plete, staff time and funds have been allocated)

56


Status codes

1. Not commenced

2. Reactive work only

3. Planning in progress

4. Planning complete work commenced

5. Substantial progress

6. Action completed

Total

Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2

Component A



Gaps and challenges


Component B Component C Component D

Each action should be assessed against the status codes provided below

These columns can provide a summary of progress towards completing each action

Worksheet 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 56

• Status Code 5: Action is making substantial progress inall areas (i.e. policy and/or planning stages are com-plete and implementation is happening in all areas,staff time and funds have been allocated

• Status Code 6: Action has been completed or policy isin place and is being adhered to.

4. The worksheet also provides space to record analysis,gaps and conclusions. Once a number of years’ datahave been accumulated, it is possible to see trends inthe rate of implementation of the management planand to assess if this rate is satisfactory. This can also berecorded in the worksheet. This type of analysis mightreveal, for example, that some sections of the plan areprogressing more quickly than others, or that imple-mentation of the plan as a whole is proceeding tooslowly to allow all actions to be completed within theplanned timeframe.

An example worksheet and graphic is included that pro-vides for two years’ data to be entered for a plan consist-ing of three main components and using the 6 statuscodes suggested above. This worksheet can be amendedto reflect the actual names and numbers of componentsections in a management plan and the numbers of yearsof data available.

ParkPlan

Database software has been developed by theEnhancing our Heritage project to facilitate the assess-ment of outputs as described in Tool 9 above. ParkPlanis designed to track the progress of implementing asite’s management plan. It is a generic tool that reflectsthe structure of any site management plan, providingthe plan has a hierarchical structure. That means thatthe plan outlines specific actions designed to reflectmanagement plan targets and overall objectives. Thetool then can be used to provide detail on the achieve-ment of individual actions.

The software tool therefore has three main purposes:• To provide detail on the progress of implementing

management plan actions• To generate reports on the status of these actions• To facilitate operational planning based on the man-

agement plan.

As results from a number of years are collected, moredetailed analysis of implementation progress and trendsbecomes possible. The flexible searching capabilities ofParkPlan allow the status of different components ofthe plan to be investigated. The results of this assess-ment tool can be presented in annual reports or otherreporting documents.

For more information on ParkPlan contact: Dr Marc Hockings [email protected]

57


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Not commenced

Reactive work only

Planning in progress

Planning complete work commenced

Substantial progress

Action completed

Percentage of actions

A

2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006

B C Whole plan

Components of plan

Status of plan implementation

Figure 3.3: Example of worksheet 8 in table and graph formats.

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 57

Tool 10: Work/Site Output Indicators

This tool assesses the achievement of annual workprogramme targets and other output indicators forthe site.

Output indicators are measures of ‘productivity’ that cansupplement information on the achievement of outcomesand implementation of the management plan.

Work output measures are usually expressed in numbers(such as numbers of law enforcement patrols, kilometresof walking track maintained, or number of communitymeetings conducted) and can be assessed by monitoringagainst these measures.

Even statistics that are not directly related to work pro-grammes can sometimes provide useful information. Forexample, visitor numbers are not usually expressed aswork output measures, in that a particular number of visi-tors is desired or is a product of direct management action,but monitoring changes in visitor numbers will give someindication of the demands placed on management.Measures of local use may assist in assessing communitycosts and benefits arising from the site. Developing a setof work output indicators can, thus, be part of the estab-lishment of an effective management information systemfor a site.

Examples of potential indicators

The products and services resulting from management ofa World Heritage site can be measured using several indi-cators, including:

• Numbers of users: e.g. numbers of visitors, numbers ofpeople using a service, and numbers of inquiriesanswered.

• Volume of work output: e.g. numbers of meetings heldwith local communities, number of patrols undertaken,extent of area surveyed in a research programme, andnumbers of prosecutions instigated.

• Physical outputs: e.g. length of site boundary delin-eated and marked, numbers of brochures produced ordistributed, and number and value of developmentprojects completed.

The assessment of outputs from a planned work pro-gramme requires that the outputs have been defined, or insome cases that targets (either quantitative or qualitative)have been set. The assessment can be carried out by measuring:

• actual work undertaken versus work planned work, e.g.numbers of patrols undertaken as compared with the

work plan, or the extent to which planned capital worksprogramme has been completed

• actual versus planned expenditure.

Assessment of work undertaken and expenditures madecan provide accountability to management authorities,donors and others. Financial information can be added tothe worksheet if this available. It is important to integratethis activity into the planning and management cycle, notonly in terms of reporting on what has happened, but alsoto improve future planning and management.


Worksheet 10 provides a simple format for measuringprogress in achieving outputs. The outputs to be moni-tored should be decided in advance, for example at a man-agers’ workshop, preferably when the management planor annual work plan is being developed. Outputs should:

• be activities that are important for achieving the overallsite objectives

• reflect the nature and use of the site• be part of annual reporting requirements.

An example of a work output indicator is given in the boxbelow:

Example of output indicator and assessment

• Indicator: Number of law enforcement patrols conducted

• Work output target: 100 patrols per year with coverage of all border areas of World Heritage site atleast once per month

• Performance: 95 patrols undertaken, coverage of allborder areas achieved each month with exception ofremote northern region of World Heritage site wherepatrols were only undertaken every second month

• Performance/level in previous year: 80 patrolsundertaken, with coverage of all border areas com-pleted every third month.

58


Just getting access to some sites, such as Rio PlatanoBiosphere Reserve in Honduras, presents a major challenge to management.

© M

Edw

ards

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 58

The worksheet should be filled out as follows:

1. A number of indicators are identified and listed (column1). These will generally be specific, measurable outputsfrom agreed work plans (e.g. number of patrols, milesof boundary delineated, etc).

2. An agreed target for each indicator is listed (column 2).Again, these should be available in work programmesor similar (e.g. 25 km of trail renovated during the nextyear).

3. The actual output is listed next (column 3). To take theprevious example, perhaps only 20 km of trail was actu-ally renovated.

4. Where possible, performance is compared to previousyears (column 4). This will not be possible for all indica-tors if the output is new (e.g. if the indicator is measur-ing outputs from a new tree-planting project), butshould be filled in wherever meaningful comparisonsoccur.

5. Comments and explanations are given in column 5.

6. At the end of the worksheet, room is provided to dis-cuss gaps and challenges identified in the assessment,and changes since the last assessment and analysis andconclusions.

59


Indicator

List indicators (these are usuallyexpressed in a numericway and may includeuser numbers, volumeof work output andphysical outputs)

Performance

List actual perform-ance so that thiscan be compared tothe target

Performance/levelin previous year

List (where theyexist) last year’s outputs relating tothe indicator

Work output target

Identify a measura-ble target for eachindicator





Gaps and challenges


Worksheet 10: Assessing Outputs

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 59

Tool 11: Assessing the Outcomes ofManagement: Conservation of Values andAchievement of Objectives

This tool is designed to help answer the most impor-tant question of all: whether the World Heritage siteis protecting its values and achieving its objectives.

This is the most challenging assessment, because it makesjudgements about long-term trends in conservation of thesite. Tools 9 and 10 tell us whether various managementactions listed in the management plan, work plan or simi-lar have been completed. But these outputs, while beingimportant as a way of seeing how management is per-forming, still do not give us all the information needed tojudge if the site is meeting its long-term aims: the out-comes of management. Even a well-managed WorldHeritage site – one where all outputs are being achieved –can sometimes continue to lose biodiversity or cultural values.

It is therefore important, when assessing the achievementof objectives and maintenance of values, to focus on out-comes rather than just delivery of outputs. We need to beable to distinguish between the two. Outputs refer toachieving the day-to-day targets of management (whatdid we do and what products and services were pro-duced?) while outcomes looks at whether or not thebroader values of the site were maintained (what did weachieve?).

For example, an outcome might be to maintain tigers in aWorld Heritage site while an associated output (what parkstaff does to try to achieve the outcome) might be to runanti-poaching controls. But running patrols is not the sameas saving the tiger, which could be killed by poachers wholearn to avoid the patrolling guards (or tigers might beaffected by an unrelated hazard such as disease).Achieving outputs therefore does not necessarily equal asuccessful outcome, which needs to be measured insteadby counting the number of tigers that remain. Similarly, adesired outcome for a national park might be to providehigh-quality ecotourism experiences for visitors, and arelated output might be to conduct daily ranger-guidedwildlife-viewing safaris. To measure the outcome, wewould need to monitor the quality of experience through,for example, a visitor survey and not just record the num-ber of visitors who used the guide service (if visitors go ona guided walk and do not enjoy themselves this does notcontribute to ‘high-quality ecotourism experiences’).

Monitoring and assessing outcomes is the most demand-ing and often the most expensive part of management. Assuch, it needs careful planning to avoid unnecessary costsand time commitments. Assessing outcomes requires amonitoring programme. This should be ongoing andonce established can provide the information required toundertake an outcomes assessment. Tool 11 thereforeincludes two worksheets. Worksheet 11a is used todevelop a programme for monitoring outcomes or record

current monitoring systems and ensure that these fullyrelate to the assessment of outcomes. The focus of thisworksheet is on measuring ecological integrity, but theprinciples it describes could also be applied to cultural andother values. This is then used to make the outcomesassessment in Worksheet 11b.

Worksheet 11a: Monitoring management outcomes

Outcome monitoring focuses mainly on whether sites val-ues are being maintained. Tool 1 (Worksheets 1a and 1b)provides a list of values and associated objectives.However, the values identified for sites in World Heritagedesignation, management plans and similar documentsare often stated in general terms with many differentaspects, not all of which can easily be measured. In thesecases, some approximate quantitative or qualitative meas-ure of achievement is needed to reflect the overall spirit ofthe value; these are usually called indicators and areexplained more fully in the box below.

What are indicators?

An indicator is something that can be measured overtime to tell us about the performance of a WorldHeritage site. As the name implies, an indicator shouldnot just give information about its own status, but alsopaint a more general picture of the health of the com-munity. For example, a species dependent on severaldifferent habitats during its life-cycle is likely to be agood indicator in that if its population is maintained,then this implies that the associated habitats are alsostill functioning ecologically. Selecting indicators is askill, and to a certain extent, an art. Indicators, however,only ever tell us part of the story and should beemployed in conjunction with a more general qualita-tive evaluation of the status of the site and its values.

An assessment of outcomes should draw on existing mon-itoring data. While some World Heritage sites already col-lect data on some or all their values, many do not.Development or refinement of a system for monitoringoutcomes should however be an aim of all World Heritagesites - but this takes time and resources to build. Tool 11adescribes the steps needed to develop or refine such a sys-tem. It should be used to provide the indicators and mon-itoring information needed to complete Worksheet 11b inthe most comprehensive way possible. The focus here is onecological integrity (see box below) because this is bothone of the more complex areas for monitoring, and alsobecause all natural World Heritage sites (and all protectedareas) should be concerned with maintaining ecologicalintegrity, whatever their more detailed objectives.However it should be noted that similar approaches can beused for other management outcomes.

60


PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 60

Why measure ecological integrity?

Ecological integrity is the state of ecosystem develop-ment characteristic for its geographic location with a fullrange of native species and supporting processes – suchecosystems are viable, and thus likely to persist.

Most natural World Heritage sites carry out some biolog-ical monitoring. These data can contribute to a morecomprehensive monitoring system, but often give anincomplete picture of ecological integrity because, forexample, they focus on particular species or ecologicalconditions, such as rainfall or river flow. Large mammalsare often monitored but are sometimes more adaptableto changing conditions than many invertebrates andplants; elephants can live in degraded forests wheremuch biodiversity has been lost so that monitoring themdoesn’t always tell us about the state of more vulnerablespecies. Similarly, although regularly collected climatedata is undoubtedly useful, routine monitoring has oftenbeen carried out with little regard as to how this relatesto the condition of specific values or to overall manage-ment objectives.

Even sites with a detailed monitoring system may wish touse this methodology to ensure monitoring resources areeffectively used, and a true picture of the ecologicalintegrity of a site is developed.

The art to developing a monitoring system is to select afew indicators that capture as much information as possi-ble about the values – such as different aspects of biodi-versity and ecosystem functioning – without costing toomuch time or money to monitor. In the context of biodi-versity monitoring, indicators need to give informationabout biodiversity (e.g. species, genetic richness, popula-tion dynamics and trophic structure) and ecosystem func-tioning (e.g. succession, vegetation age-class distributions,productivity and decomposition). Where time and moneyis short, priority should be given to those values that aremost important for the site.

The figure below suggests a step-by-step process toassess the outcomes of management. Each step isexplained in more detail in the following text.Although the steps are listed in sequence, some maytake place simultaneously.

61


Step 1: Use Tool 1 to identify a group of values that need to form the basis of your monitoring plan

Note: although the arrows suggest a sequence, several of these stages will usually take place simultaneously.

Step 2: Develop a set of indicators to reflect the major site values

Step 3: Agree indicator thresholds

Step 4: Identify responses to a breach of the thresholds

Step 5: Compare data needed with existing monitoring processes / data and identify gaps

Step 6: Develop detailed monitoring protocols

Step 7: Develop a data management system

Step 8: Assessment of management outcomes: initially to establish a baseline and then to monitor against this baseline (see Tool 11b)

Figure 3.4: A step-by-step process to assess the outcomes of management.

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 61

Completing Worksheet 11a: Monitoring manage-ment outcomes

The first seven steps in the figure above are discussed inmore detail below with reference to Worksheet 11a,which provides a template for recording the informationdeveloped in the monitoring plan and the basis for theassessment of outcomes in Tool 11b.

Step 1: Use Tool 1 to identify a group of values that needto form the basis of your monitoring planTool 1 helps World Heritage sites to identify major site val-ues (Worksheet 1a) which in turn provide a focus for man-agement through a series of management objectives(Worksheet 1b).The need to maintain or improve the integrity of valuesprovides the basis for developing and monitoring a seriesof indicators.

Step 2: Develop a set of indicators to reflect the majorsite values Indicators should be selected for each major value, draw-ing on existing objectives. They may be either quantitativeor qualitative, and should ideally have or at least considerthe following attributes:

• have a clear, predictable and verifiable relationship tothe integrity of the value being assessed

• be sensitive to changes in the particular outcome beingmeasured

• reflect long-term changes rather than short-term orlocalized fluctuations

• reflect changes that will have direct implications formanagement (including biophysical, social, cultural,economic and political changes)

• reflect changes at spatial and temporal scales of rele-vance to management

• be cost-effective in terms of data collection, analysisand interpretation

• be simple to measure and interpret• be easily understood by non-specialists• be able to be collected, analysed and reported on in a

timely fashion• assess impacts of known pressures and detect new

pressures.

The table below provides some examples of indicatorsthat might be useful for sites in terms of measuring eco-logical values.

62


What the indicatormeasures

Size

Ecosystem functioning

Renewal

Uniqueness

Diversity

Threats

Questions to be answered Possible indicators

• Populations of range dependent species such astop carnivores/herbivores

• Populations of species that cannot survive outsidethe World Heritage site

• Specific microhabitats (e.g. dead wood,presence/absence of coral bleaching, savannahmosaic)

• Specific food sources (e.g. krill population, inverte-brates, fruit trees)

• Presence of young in populations of long-livedspecies (e.g. of trees and corals)

• Presence of natural disturbance factors and a fullage-range (e.g. natural fire regimes, old trees, nat-ural flooding patterns on rivers)

• Populations of rare and endemic species • Populations of species likely to be of particular

concern to those visiting the World Heritage site

• Occasional repeat sampling of particular plant orinvertebrate groups

• Population of migratory species

• Measurement of specific, identified ecologicalthreats over time

• Is the World Heritage site large and intact enoughto provide long-term security to all species?

• Are species populations or habitat areas sufficientlylarge to maintain themselves?

• Is the whole ecosystem functioning sustainably? • Are food webs working?

• Are long-lived species renewing their populations?• Are natural disturbance patterns being followed?

• Are rare/endemic species being conserved?• Are species of special cultural value being

conserved?

• Is overall diversity being maintained?

• Is the World Heritage site being degraded?

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 62

The initial list of indicators will often be too long in termsof the budget and capacity available for monitoring and soa smaller subset will need to be selected. This process willtake time, could well involve workshops to discuss the var-ious options, and should, if at all feasible, include expertinput to ensure that the best possible suite of indicators ischosen.

Worksheet 11a should be completed for each indicator(i.e. a separate worksheet for each indicator). The name ofthe indicator, how it relates to a site’s management val-ues and objectives, and the justification for selectionshould be recorded at the top of the worksheet.

Step 3: Agree indicator thresholds Crucially, indicators should be able to measure changeeffectively. Conservation efforts should aim at maintainingthe site’s values within acceptable ranges of variation inorder to preserve a healthy status over the long-term. Anacceptable range of variation is determined by the thresh-olds which, if exceeded, suggest that there is likely to be along-term problem. Once these thresholds are exceededyou would expect to observe the ecological system begin-ning to degrade or change, recovery is unlikely if theadverse factors continue to operate and thus managementinterventions will be needed. For example, if fire is impor-tant to the ecological integrity of savannah, and undernatural conditions it usually returns every 8–12 years, iffires occur either significantly more or less frequently thenthe savannah will degrade. For each indicator thereforethresholds should be defined detailing the levels aboveand below which urgent management intervention will beneeded.

In many situations, these thresholds will be difficult toidentify and in some cases may be little more than edu-cated guesses: it may therefore be necessary to introducea ‘confidence level rating’ to each threshold. Thus, wherethresholds are science-based decisions backed by long-term monitoring and assessment, a high level of confi-dence can be given. Other thresholds may have only amedium level of confidence if based on sound judgementand long-term experience, but not be backed by research,monitoring or assessment. Thresholds with a low level ofconfidence are likely to correlate with areas which are lack-ing in research, monitoring and assessment and wherethresholds are little more than ‘educated guesses’.

Wherever possible, future research plans should includeprojects which will help increase confidence levels ofthresholds.

The indicator thresholds should be recorded in column 1 ofWorksheet 11a and their confidence levels in column 2.

Step 4: Identify responses to a potential breach of thethresholdsIt is also important to identify the management interven-tions that will be needed if a threshold is likely to be

exceeded. These can be included in the monitoring plan tohelp prompt quick reactions if monitoring identifies seri-ous problems. So for example if control of a particularinvasive species is an indicator and measurements showthat the invasive species is spreading fast, there should ide-ally be a back-up plan to reduce levels (e.g. employment ofworkers or volunteers to manually remove the species).

Management responses can be recorded in the column 3of Worksheet 11a.

Step 5: Compare data needed with existing monitoringprocesses/data and identify gapsThere are many ways to go about collecting informationfor indicators, including direct measurement by park staff;partnerships with external scientists, local communitiesand volunteers; or through investments in collection ofbaseline data, such as by Rapid Ecological Assessments.Ultimately, these various methods and monitoring priori-ties must be integrated within a site-based monitoringplan.

Current monitoring activities and any additional activitiesneeded to measure new indicators can be entered in thecolumn 4 of Worksheet 11a.

It is often possible to measure more than one indicatorthrough a single monitoring activity (for example, moni-toring coral reef health involves laying line transects anddata on several indicators [e.g. corals and fish] that can becollected along the same transect). Therefore, once work-sheets have been filled in for individual indicators, theyshould be looked at together to see how a coherent mon-itoring plan can be developed that involves the least costand effort. The overall monitoring plan should be reviewedand approved by key stakeholders.

Step 6: Develop a detailed monitoring protocolsThe plan laid out in the worksheet provides a general out-line for the monitoring programme. More detailed moni-toring protocols then need to be developed to ensurequality and credibility, so that monitoring is carried outconsistently, data are suitable for comparative analysis,and any changes detected are real and not due to differ-ences in sampling, for instance, if staff change. Monitoringprotocols should be reviewed and tested, and provision forreview and revision built into the protocol. Further sourcesof information on developing monitoring protocols areincluded in the box below, but ideally protocols shouldinclude:

Background information• Objectives: Why monitoring is being carried out. This

should be linked to the indicator(s) monitored and thethresholds used

• Bibliography: a list of relevant material (e.g. journal arti-cles and reports) and information on previous activities(including constraints on monitoring activities).

63


PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 63

Protocol design• Method: Method or methods used (e.g. sampling, inter-

views, observation, line transect techniques, traps orstrip census methodology)

• Procedures: Standardized procedures for collecting data,including area of monitoring, staffing requirements (e.g.numbers, required training, time allocated), equipmentrequirements (e.g. vehicles, binoculars, GIS, traps) andsafety procedures

• Frequency of data collection: i.e. monthly, quarterly,annually, etc.

• Data collection: Indicators to be measured (e.g. species,numbers of sightings, fire frequency, average earnings oflocal communities)

• Data analysis: advice regarding analysis and comparison(e.g. use of graphs, analysis software, comparisons, etc.)

• Data management: Records should include the monitor-ing results (datasets) and the history of monitoring devel-opment and revision (see step 7).

Protocol adaptation• Review: As with all management activities undertaken in

a World Heritage site, monitoring activities should bereviewed regularly to ensure that not only are the rightthings being monitored, but that this monitoring is beingcarried out in the most effective way (and that resourcesare not being wasted on monitoring unnecessary things).

• Revision: Although protocols aim to ensure standardiza-tion of monitoring (for the reasons discussed above),they should also be adapted and revised if the reviewprocess indicates this need. Revision may need to takeplace due to changes in technology, gaps in data need,budget changes, and changing conditions on theground including new pressures, etc.

Additional information on monitoring protocolsGuidelines for long-term monitoring protocols, printedin the Wildlife Society Bulletin 2003, 31(4), pp. 1000-1003. See: science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/proto-cols/ProtocolGuidelines.pdfEnvironment Canada’s Ecological Monitoring andAssessment Network protocols on BiodiversityMonitoring; Ecosystem Monitoring and Community-based Monitoring. See: www.eman-rese.ca/eman/US National Parks Service Inventory and MonitoringProgram.See:science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/index.htm

Resources available for monitoring may well act as a real-ity-check for the process of indicator choice and monitor-ing needs, as most sites will have only limited budgetsavailable for monitoring. However, developing a thoroughmonitoring plan can be used to highlight gaps in monitor-ing (e.g. new monitoring activities that are required, butfor which there is no funding) and as a basis for fundrais-ing or reallocating available budgets.

A summary of the monitoring protocols, reviewing fre-quency of monitoring, timing, person responsible andcost/funding, can be recorded in the last four columns ofWorksheet 11a

Step 7: Develop a data management systemA concisely written monitoring plan, as outlined in Tool11a, will provide a good basis for managing site monitor-ing, and should be an invaluable resource when site staffchange. Such a plan needs to be complemented by aneffective data management system for recording monitor-ing results. Data must be carefully stored in a form that canbe readily accessed for analysis and interpretation. It istherefore essential to develop a good data managementsystem - preferably electronic although a carefully main-tained manual filing system can be effective. Monitoringprogrammes often fail to be useful because the data arenot stored or are kept in a form that makes later use difficult.

64


Monitoring results recorded by park wardens at BwindiImpenetrable National Park, Uganda.

© M

arc

Hoc

king

s

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 64

Worksheet 11b: Assessing Management Outcomes

Once you have developed or recorded your monitoringplan using the template suggested in Tool 11a, Tool 11bcan be used to assess the effectiveness of a site in achiev-ing its management objectives and conserving the majorvalues of the site.

Completing Worksheet 11b: Assessing Outcomes ofManagement

1. A separate worksheet is completed for each value (asrecorded in Worksheet 1a).

2. List each indicator which is being assessed for that valuein column 1 (these can be copied from Worksheet 11a).

3. The thresholds which have been developed in Tool 11aare then listed in column 2.

4. The next step is to analyse the status and trends of allthe indicators and assess performance in relation to theagreed thresholds. In many cases, status will be meas-ured numerically (e.g. number of migrating birdsrecorded, area of intact grassland remaining, number ofjobs created for local people by the World Heritage site),although in some cases a more qualitative measure will

be needed (e.g. perceptions of stakeholders relating topride in the site, or visitor opinions). For trends, indicatewhether the status of the indicator is stable, improvingor declining over time. Detail will depend on the sophis-tication of the monitoring system: sometimes hard datawill be available, while in other cases indicators can bejudged by experts or by agreement amongst stakehold-ers. A narrative summary of the analysis should beadded to column 3 of Worksheet 11b.

5. Column 4 summarizes the status and trend of the indi-cators in a graphic which provides an easily understoodsummary of the health of an indicator (formats for thesegraphics are suggested in the figure below). The ratingsystem suggests two types of information: the tintedboxes summarize the status of the indicator, and thenarrows summarize the trend (i.e. whether the conditionis getting better or worse). Three levels of assessment ofstatus are suggested: (1) ‘significant concern’ if the indi-cator suggests that serious problems are developing; (2)‘caution’ when there may be developing reasons forconcern, and (3) ‘good’ when all appears to be fine.Three levels of assessment of trend are also proposed:here arrows are used to record whether the condition ofa particular indicator is (1) improving, (2) unchanged or(3) deteriorating.

65


Indicator: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Major Site Values/Objectives assessed by the indicator: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Justification for selection: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indicatorthresholds

Level beyondwhich urgentmanagementaction will beneeded (usuallyan upper andlower limit)

Confidencelevel ofthreshold

The likely accuracy of the threshold(high, mediumor low)

Managementresponses

Review here the managementresponses if theindicatorsthreshold isexceeded

Timing

When?

Monitoring activity/methods

Summarize how information will be collected (survey, useof monitoring equip-ment etc) and whethermonitoring is alreadytaking place (current)or new (needs to bedeveloped)

Frequency

Identify theproportion of staff whoare trained in each category

Personresponsible

By whom?

Cost andfundingsource

List thelikely costandwhethermoney iscurrentlyavailable

Current:

New:

Current:

New:

Worksheet 11a: Monitoring management outcomes

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 65

Decisions about the status and trends should be based onquantitative or, at least, well-argued qualitative data wher-ever possible. Judgements should ideally be made collec-tively by a group of stakeholders.

6. A comparison can then be made with any previousassessments. This can be recorded in column 5 ofWorksheet 11b, either as a narrative or by using thegraphics suggest in the figure above. Details (i.e. date ofany previous assessment) should also be noted here.

7. For each indicator, any recommendations and follow-upactions arising from the assessment can be listed in col-umn 6. Achievement of these actions can then be fol-lowed up before the next assessment is conducted.

66


Significant concern

Caution: may be a developing concern

Good: all appears to be fine

Condition is improving

Condition is unchanged

Condition is deteriorating

Figure 3.5: Graphics for summarizing the outcome assessment.

Indicator

These shouldhave beenrecorded inWorksheet 11a

Status of indicator in relation to threshold

Using the monitoring data gatheredfor each indicator, assess the statusand trend of the indicator in thistext field. Is the status of significant concern,developing concern or fine? Is the condition improving,unchanged or deteriorating?

Rating

Summarize thestatus and trendof the indicatorusing the graphics

Threshold

These shouldhave been developed inWorksheet 11a

Comparisonwith last assessment

How does thiscompare with anyprevious assessments?

Managementinterventions:urgency anddetails ofactions

Identify any specific actionsneeded inresponse to infor-mation collectedin the monitoringand assessmentof objectives

Major Site Value(s): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Worksheet 11b: Assessment of Outcomes of Management

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 66

Tool 12: Review of ManagementEffectiveness Assessment Results

This tool summarizes the results of the assessmentand helps to prioritize management actions inresponse to the assessment’s findings.

A relatively thorough assessment of management effec-tiveness using the tools included in this toolkit, or equiva-lent systems, should reveal a considerable body ofinformation on the management of a World Heritage site.But the assessment of management is only the first step:assessments are only worth the time and energy if theylead to changes in management and so all assessmentshould be concluded by the development of a strategy toimplement the results.

As we noted in Table 2.1, assessment of managementeffectiveness will often be linked to specific managementrequirements or ongoing projects, such as revisions of themanagement plan, development of annual work plansand budgets, or to aid various reporting requirements. Butas well as informing specific management processes suchas these, the assessment may also indicate where addi-tional activities are needed, for example: developing newmonitoring requirements, revising staff working practices,or developing better budgeting processes. In some cases,these activities can be implemented immediately; in othersfunding will need to be sought.


For each of the tools detailed in this toolkit, space is pro-vided to record opportunities, recommendations and follow-up actions that have been identified in the assess-ment. Worksheet 12 summarizes these to provide a con-cise list of follow-up actions that the assessment processhas identified.

1. The worksheet divides the various tools into the six ele-ments of WCPA management effectiveness frameworkwhich form the organizing structure for this wholetoolkit. These are listed in column 1.

2. Next, all the tools are listed (column 2). Worksheet 12should be adapted to reflect the tools used in the spe-cific site assessment. In other words, if sites have used amixture of the tools in this toolkit, existing monitoringand adaptations, then Worksheet 12 will have to beadapted to reflect this.

3. For the summary of Tool 11, we have provided space torecord the overall trends in the status of key values.Where more than one indicator is used to assess the sta-tus of a value, it will be necessary to reach a conclusionon general status and trend summarized across the indi-cators used.

4. Finally, by each tool the worksheet provides space for follow-up actions recorded in the assessments (column 3).This tool can then be used to prioritize activities and assessthe implementation of actions over the coming years.

67


Element

Elements of the WCPA framework

Follow-up Actions

Summarize follow-up actions listed at the end of each worksheet

Tool

List the tools used (adapt as necessary to the particular assessment)

Tool 1: Identifying Site Values and ManagementObjectives

Tool 2: Identifying Threats

Tool 3: Relationships with Stakeholders/Partners

Tool 4: Review of National Context

Tool 5: Assessment of Management Planning

Tool 6: Design Assessment

Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs

Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes

Tool 9: Assessment of Management PlanImplementation

Tool 10: Work/Site Output Indicators

Tool 11b: Assessing Outcomes of Management

Worksheet 12: Review of Management Effectiveness Assessment Results

Context

Planning

Inputs

Processes

Outputs

Outcomes

List each value that has been assessed

Summarize the trend of each value based on the indicators

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 67

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 68

69

Case Studies

Rickshaw pullers waiting for clients at Keoladeo National Park, India.

© Nigel Dudley

4PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 69

Introduction

The toolkit described in this publication was notdeveloped in isolation by researchers, but was devel-oped gradually over time in active cooperation withstaff at protected area agencies responsible for ninenatural World Heritage sites in Africa, southern Asiaand Latin America, as well as other World Heritageand protected area specialists from a range of disci-plines (i.e. conservation planning experts, social sci-entists etc). This structure offered the project staffand consultants the opportunity to work with pro-tected area managers, rangers and academics in anumber of different countries over a period of sevenyears, as assessment systems were developed andapplied. It allowed the project to get immediatefeedback on whether the tools being suggestedworked or not: on many occasions park staff satdown with project staff and talked through andmodified approaches. As a result this toolkit hasgone through three previous drafts as approacheswere improved over time.

Being able to review several monitoring and assess-ment cycles helped build-up experience on the prac-ticalities of institutionalizing assessments. It alsohighlighted differences between natural WorldHeritage sites, where the vast range of habitat types,values, pressures and resources means that very dif-ferent approaches are needed.

The following case studies summarize how assess-ment has been applied in three of the test sites, withexamples from southern Asia (Keoladeo NationalPark in Rajasthan, India); Latin America (SangayNational Park in Ecuador) and Africa (BwindiImpenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda). Theyeach concentrate on differing elements of the assess-ment process and of the Enhancing our Heritageproject process as a whole. Each case study startswith a brief summary of the World Heritage site; themain body of the text then reviews the park man-agement, highlights some of the specific activities inthe Enhancing our Heritage project which the sitefocused on, and then reviews implementation,results and future actions. A number of ‘stories fromthe field’ provide a little local colour to the case stud-ies, and give tips for carrying out the assessmentsfrom the perspective of sites that took part an activepart in developing the Enhancing our HeritageToolkit.

The case studies have drawn extensively on reportsdeveloped by people involved in the project at the various sites. These inputs are gratefullyacknowledged.

Keoladeo National Park, India

Park profile

Keoladeo National Park (KNP) is located in the Bharatpurdistrict of the state of Rajasthan. It is a wetland of inter-national importance, famous as both a winteringground for Palaearctic migratory waterfowl, and for itslarge congregation of non-migratory resident breedingbirds. It has been the only wintering ground for the cen-tral population of the endangered Siberian Crane (Grusleucogeranus), which may now be extirpated.

Keoladeo covers an area of 29 km2 and is situated onthe extreme western edge of the Gangetic basin, oncethe confluence of the Gambhir and Banganga Rivers.Paleobotanical studies have traced 26,000 years of thearea’s history, from a large open water lake throughfour dry phases, to finally becoming a marshland. Atthe end of the nineteenth century, the park’s area wasdeveloped through the modification of a natural wet-land depression into a duck shooting reserve. Thisreserve was intensively managed to support largenumbers of migratory waterfowl. Keoladeo wasdeclared a national park in the 1980s and a WorldHeritage site in 1985 (then criteria iv, now criteria x).

KNP’s unique mosaic of habitats, including wetlands,woodlands, scrub forests and grasslands, support awide diversity of plant and animal species. Its floraincludes 375 species of flowering plants of which 90are wetland species. The fauna includes more than350 species of birds, 27 mammals, 13 reptiles, 7amphibians and 43 fish. The wetlands support thelargest heronry and congregation of cranes in theregion. The park lies on the Central Asian Flyway ofthe Asia Pacific Global Migratory Flyway, and is astaging and wintering ground for a huge number ofmigratory waterfowl breeding in the Palaearcticregion. The grasslands are an important roosting sitefor Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginosus), and in thewinter, the globally threatened Greater SpottedEagle (Aquila clanga) and Imperial Eagle (Aquila heli-aca) can be found in the park.

The city of Bharatpur lies on the park’s periphery.About twenty-one villages and hamlets are locatedaround the park with a population of some 14,500people. The economy of these villages is primarilypastoral, dependent on milk sales and agriculture.The name ‘Keoladeo’ comes from the temple of LordSiva, who is also known as keval ek dev or ‘the onlyLord’; the temple is situated in the park and is of reli-gious significance to local communities who regularlyvisit the site. Keoladeo is also part of the ‘GoldenTriangle’ (Delhi-Agra-Jaipur), and as such, is very pop-ular with both domestic and foreign tourists. Thisresults in important tourism revenue generation forboth local communities and the State Government.

Case Studies4

70

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 70

Park management

Keoladeo National Park (KNP) is an artificially created wet-land site; the area is totally enclosed by a wall immediatelyoutside of which lie agricultural fields and human settle-ments with no buffer zone. Keoladeo has a long history ofintensive management after originally being developed asa shooting reserve in the nineteenth century. The uniqueecosystem that developed has been intensively managedto provide a habitat for both migratory waterfowl and res-ident land and water birds.

The area was first protected under the 1925 BharatpurForest Act. In 1956, the local Maharaja handed over man-agement of the reserve to the Government of Rajasthan,although the Maharajas retained their hunting rights until1972. In 1967, the area was declared a protected forestunder the provisions of the Rajasthan Forest Act (1953)and in 1981, its conservation status as a wildlife sanctuarywas raised to that of a national park under the Wildlife(Protection) Act (1972). It was declared a World Heritagesite in 1985.

Keoladeo’s ‘man-made’ ecosystem requires sustained andintensive management in order to maintain its ecologicalcharacteristics. Management practices maintain differentwater levels over the park to provide habitats for a wide diversity of waterfowl. Other key activities includecontrol of invasive alien species, such as water hyacinth(Eicchornia crassipes) and efforts to control the prolificgrowth of Prosopis juliflora.

KNP’s management objectives are: • To maintain the ecological seral stages of the ecosystem

for avifaunal diversity in particular, and other biodiversityin general.

• To provide an enriching wilderness experience and visitorsatisfaction through conservation education and wildlifeinterpretation programmes.

• To provide site-specific, eco-friendly packages of meas-ures to reduce dependence of local communities on pro-tected area resources and to provide alternate livelihoodoptions.

Enhancing our Heritage Process

The Enhancing our Heritage (EoH) process in South Asiawas coordinated by staff from the Wildlife Institute of India(WII). An initial management effectiveness evaluation wascarried out in Keoladeo in 2002-03, facilitated by WII withthe close cooperation of site managers (WII, 2003). WIIalso produced a short video giving a park profile anddetails on management effectiveness evaluations for allthe South Asia parks. This was a useful training tool andmeans of sharing the experiences of the Asian sites withother EoH pilot sites around the world. A second manage-ment effectiveness evaluation in KNP was conductedthrough a series of stakeholder consultations organizedbetween February and October 2007 (WII, 2007).

Stories from the field: Holding stakeholderworkshops to complete the assessment

During the second assessment workshop, the WII teamdeveloped some best practice guidance on holdingstakeholder workshops as part of the evaluation process:• Considerable time is required before the workshop to

ensure the presence of all stakeholders. In the finalassessment workshops in Bharatpur, for example, nowomen from the local community were initially pres-ent. Additional effort and time may be required to getsome stakeholders involved in these assessments. Inmany social/cultural scenarios it might be better tohave separate meetings with the women as in somecommunities women do not speak in front of the menof their own community.

• In some cases, it will be important not to include allstakeholders within the same workshop. Where therehas been a history of conflict (as in Keoladeo betweenthe local community and forest department), theassessment process could become dominated by rela-tionship tensions.

• In the Indian context, and probably in many others, itis important that local communities are provided witha meal when taking part in the assessment work-shop/stakeholder consultations. This is an importantgesture of goodwill, as communities often forego aworkday to be present at these meetings.

• Stakeholder groups require time for ice-breaking, trustbuilding, etc to understand what is being done and why.They also need to trust fully that their viewpoints arereflected in the final assessment report. In many cases,this will require a translation of the toolkit and the com-pleted assessment into the relevant local language.

• Facilitators need to be fully familiar with the assess-ment process and the Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit(or adaptation of the toolkit) being used. A number offacilitators are required to carry out the exercises withdifferent stakeholders.

• Baseline data has to be in place, in other words,results from previous assessments, monitoring andresearch reports, budget information, details ofannual work plans, etc.

• Time needs to be allocated for all the teammembers/facilitators to compile all the informationgathered during the assessment. This is best doneshortly after the event itself, while still fresh in every-one’s mind.

Implementation

One of the main gaps identified in the first assessmentrelated to the need for:• More research and baseline information on issues relat-

ing to water quantity and quality• Additional monitoring of indicators of ecological health • Further development of livelihood options for the local

Case Studies 4

71

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 71

communities who can no longer freely use the resourcesin KNP.

Through the EoH project, a number of research, monitor-ing and outreach initiatives have taken place, includingmonitoring of bird species - in particular raptors, waterquality monitoring in and around the protected area, anddetailed documentation and monitoring of birds in thesatellite wetlands around Keoladeo. A monitoring andevaluation system is recommended as part of the man-agement plan and will be incorporated into the revisedplan in 2008. A variety of methods were used in the devel-opment of the research and monitoring work carried outbetween 2004 and 2006, from discussions with the localcommunity to bird counts. The work was coordinated byWII and carried out by experts from a variety of fields.

Water quantity and quality

Hydrology and water scarcity in KNP

The major threat to the Keoladeo wetlands is lack of waterdue to the construction of dams that restrict water flowfrom the associated river systems. These changes affectnot only biodiversity values, but also decrease groundwa-ter recharge by lowering the water table which surround-ing villages depend on for their pumped water supply. Astudy from 2003 to 2006, partly funded by the EoH proj-ect, reviewed the growing water crisis, its effects on catch-ment health and the hydrological functions of the park,with the aim of calculating the actual water requirementsof KNP from both a management and ecosystem healthviewpoint.

Semi-arid monsoonal depression wetlands such asKeoladeo are dependent on watershed conditions andrainfall for water. For centuries the region’s water has beenregulated from two rivers, the Gambhir and Banganga,through a system of dykes and canals built for the dualpurpose of flood control and irrigation. Together, theserivers were the principal sources of water to KNP, but bothhave been increasingly dammed upstream from the park.The Banganga has long since dried up, putting pressure onthe Gambhir to supply water to Bharatpur. In recent years,the park has faced severe water shortages, even duringperiods of adequate rainfall, as water has not beenreleased into the park from the dams. An analysis of waterdistribution carried out during the study, part-funded byEoH, clearly indicates that if water is received in the AjanDam on the Gambhir, then a good percentage is releasedto KNP (see Figure 4.1). However, as 100% of the river

Case Studies4

72

Pumping ground water into the wetland areas of KeoladeoNational Park, India.

© N

igel

Dud

ley

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Input Water (million cubic feet Release to KNP (million cubic feet)

Availability and Release to KNP (million cubic feet)

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Figure 4.1: Water input and release to KNP from 1981 to 2006.

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 72

flows of the Panchan, Kakund and Jaggar rivers (all tribu-taries of the Gambhir River), have been dammed, the pri-mary sources of water for the Ajan Dam and, thus KNP, isthe release of water from these dams upstream. In 1991,the Panchana Dam was constructed at the headwaters ofthe Gambhir to mitigate flooding and meet local agricul-tural needs. The problem of limited water release is due tothe increasing water demands of farmers from the thirty-five villages in the Panchana Dam area, whilst those in the388 villages downstream of the dam have all sufferedadverse impacts due to the lack of water flow in theGambhir River. As a result, the water scarcity at KNP hasbecome critical and is reflected in the diminishing numbersof migratory waterfowl, failure of the heronry andincreased growth of Prosopis juliflora in the wetland area.

The study concluded that an optimum quantity of about18 million cubic metres (MCM) of water is considered necessary for conserving the ecological characteristics ofKeoladeo. Of this, 15 MCM has to be augmented while 3 MCM is contributed by rainfall. Given the problems withthe ‘traditional’ supply of water to the park, suggestedoptions for increasing the water supply to KNP include: • The Chiksana Canal Floodwater Utilization Proposal: The

proposal seeks to utilize the rainwater runoff of the AjanDam, which is usually lost through this canal. It can pro-vide about 0.36 MCM water daily during the monsoonmonths.

• Emergency Groundwater Utilization Plan: The proposal isto drill eleven deep borewells in the park and construct alarge deep water body to store water from the AjanDam.

• Goverdhan Drain Proposal: The Government has agreedin principle to this project, which would provide 15.57MCM of water to Keoladeo, and would be sufficient tomeet the needs of the park.

Studying water quality

Water quality is as important for the conservation of a wet-land site as water quantity. Therefore another study carriedout under the auspices of the EoH project on water qual-ity (Singh, 2005) aimed to:• develop baseline data for future water quality monitoring• provide information on significance of components

monitored and provide recommendations on fluctua-tions or drastic digression in quality which would triggermanagement interventions

• establish monitoring protocols for future monitoring• feed into effective adaptive management of KNP.

Recommendations and monitoring protocols for physico-chemical analysis were developed and baseline results –which found significant fluctuations in salinity, total dis-solved solids and chlorides – indicated the need for man-agement interventions, particularly during the breedingseason.

A landscape approach to conservation

Even if the various scenarios to maintain water quantity inKNP discussed above are successful, wetland ecosystemscannot function in isolation. A study was initiated withEoH funding in 2005 to survey satellite wetlands aroundKNP that are of high value to both migratory and residentwater birds. KNP is fully protected because of its role as alarge staging, moulting and roosting ground, as well asproviding foraging sites for many water bird species.However, because it is only 29 km2 in area, waterfowl have to meet their food requirements largely from aquatichabitats scattered around the region.

Many of these wetlands have high conservation values forseveral migratory and resident water bird species. Duringthe study, a total of 76 water bird species were recordedfrom the KNP, whereas 94 species were observed in 34satellite wetlands.

The study indicates that the entire ecosystem consisting ofthe national park and its surrounding satellite wetlandsshould be protected, if the long-term survival of the area’swater birds is to be accomplished. For example, during2006, when drought prevailed in the area, increased num-bers and species of water birds were observed in many ofthese satellite wetlands. However a range of threats affectthese satellite wetlands including commercial fish farming,reclamation, draining water for irrigation, water-hyacinthinfestation, pesticide run-off, factory effluents and birdtrapping. It is recommended that these threats be miti-gated through a participatory conservation approach.

Biodiversity monitoring

Although some ecological monitoring was already takingplace at KNP, the EoH project helped to fill monitoringgaps revealed by the initial assessment. A study funded byEoH devised a programme for ecological monitoring of thepark and its environs which is now being implemented(Verma, 2005). The objectives of this monitoring pro-gramme are to:• Monitor population trends of the raptor community - the

top avian predators - as an indicator of ecosystem health• Monitor composition and population trends in ‘heronry’• Survey satellite wetlands around KNP for avifaunal diver-

sity and evaluate the role of satellite wetlands for migra-tory and resident birds, especially waterfowls.

The monitoring report developed by the EoH project pro-vides baseline data and suggestions for future monitoringprotocols.

Case Studies 4

73

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 73

Livelihoods and local people

Following the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act of1972, grazing of livestock inside KNP was banned in 1982when the area was given national park status. Violenceerupted in opposition to the ban and seven villagers losttheir lives. Villagers living around the park were deniedaccess through the park and gates along the boundarywall were closed. This resulted in the alienation of peoplefrom both the park and its management.

Building relations with local people and increasing liveli-hood options has thus been a major focus of managementover recent years. The EoH project specifically includedstakeholder groups in the assessment process and carriedout a research project looking at benefit-sharing betweenthe park and local people (Bhatt, 2005).

Stories from the field: An innovative resource-sharing projectBhatt’s (2005) study illustrated the benefit of pro-grammes aimed at improving local livelihoods. Indianlegislation does not allow for resource use from pro-tected areas. However, many local people believe thatuse of the park’s resources is their traditional right. InKeoladeo, the area now protected from resource usewas previously the private property of the Maharaja andwas open to villagers as grazing grounds for a nominalpayment. However, a recent innovative and participa-tory project aimed at controlling an invasive species hasallowed the local community access to obtain certainbenefits from the park again.

Prosopis juliflora is an evergreen shrub native to theSouth American region. It is fast growing, nitrogen-fix-ing and tolerant to arid conditions. Ever since it wasintroduced into the park, this shrub has threatened thefragile ecosystem of the KNP by reducing its wetlandcharacteristics.

Eco-development Committees (EDCs) in fifteen villagesaround KNP have been helping park managers controlthe shrub. Each family was allotted a 10x100 m plotand was asked to remove the P. juliflora trees includingnew seedlings and saplings by root. The villagers were

permitted to remove the material for their own use freeof cost. By the end of June 2007, a total of 1,378 peo-ple belonging to 338 families working under 14 EDCshad come forward to help park management andobtain resources from the park.

KNP is a popular tourist destination, both nationally andinternationally. The site thus provides livelihoods for a largenumber of guides and rickshaw pullers, hoteliers and touroperators. The park can receive up to 4,000 visitors a day

during public holidays, but tourist numbers can fluctuategreatly depending on the time of year and condition of thewetland. As KNP is a highly-visited park, an effective systemfor tourism management and park interpretation has to bein place. From time to time, the protected area manage-ment gives training in bird identification and KNP values toguides and rickshaw pullers, enabling them to earn moremoney. However, the protected area invariably lacks fund-ing support to carry out regular and varied training. As partof the EoH project, a training needs assessment was carriedout and local guides and rickshaw pullers were given train-ing in communication skills enhancement, flora and faunaidentification, and tourism management. Training needsfor forest department staff were also identified, andcourses were subsequently offered training in communica-tion skills, life-skill education and tourism management.

Results and impacts

The need for adequate water to sustain the wetland ecol-ogy of Keoladeo is clearly the most urgent issue facing themanagement of the park. Without water the essential val-ues of the park are lost: the wetland habitat and associ-ated biodiversity decline, the area’s ecology changes asinvasive species and scrub predominate, groundwateravailable to the local community declines, and touristnumbers and the related economic benefits to the localcommunity of tourism are reduced.

Although the EoH project could not address the long-termissues for KNP due to the water source issues upstream,the study undertaken to determine optimum water levels,review water release issues, and highlight possibleresponses to the water crises has provided important base-line information. Similarly the project has helped providebaseline data on water quality and on developing a land-scape approach to the conservation of wetlands in theKNP area.

The future

The KNP ‘water crisis’ has underlined the need for inte-grated management planning in a regional context. Theprocesses of monitoring of satellite wetlands and man-agement intervention initiated under the project need tobe sustained, and the conservation needs of satellite wet-lands should be addressed in the management of KNP.

Stories from the field: Linking ecologicalresearch with community needsThe recent years of drought in Rajasthan exacted aheavy toll on local people who were hired as touristguides and rickshaw pullers in KNP. Reduced water inthe park resulted in limited birdlife and consequently adecline in tourist numbers. Many village wetlands withwater have now become a refuge for birds. Researchinto satellite wetlands recommended that if villagerswere interested, they could develop these wetlands into

Case Studies4

74

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 74

tourist spots, and also benefit from tourism revenues.The possibility of developing home stays, which couldprovide tourists with a village experience, and also earnrevenue for local communities, was discussed and localcommunity members were enthusiastic about theseenterprises. Innovative ideas like these need to be devel-oped to ensure that a bad year does not ruin the situa-tions of people economically dependent on tourismrevenue.

References and sources

Bhatt, S. 2005. Opportunities and Limitations for BenefitSharing in Select World Heritage Sites, India, EoH Project,WII, India.

Singh, R. 2005. Water Quality Assessment in and aroundKeoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan; TechnicalReport 9, EoH Project, WII, India.

Verma, A. 2005. Ecological monitoring in KeoladeoNational Park and its environs for enhancing manage-ment effectiveness, Technical Report 10, EoH Project, WII,India.

WII. 2003. Initial Management Effectiveness EvaluationReport: Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, EoH Project,WII, India.

WII. 2007. Final Management Effectiveness EvaluationReport: Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, EoH Project,WII, India.

Sangay National Park, Ecuador

Park profile

Sangay was declared a National Park in 1979 underthe framework of the first National ProtectedAreas System Conservation Strategy of Ecuador. Itshalf a million hectares in the Eastern Cordilleraregion of the Andes protects a spectrum of ecosys-tems from tropical forests on the foothills at 900m, through cloud forests and paramos, to perma-nent snow-covered volcanoes at over 5,000 m. Thisdiversity of ecosystems contributed to the areabeing inscribed as a World Heritage site in 1983.

The park is home to some 140 amphibians, rep-tiles and mammal species, and 343 bird species. Itsisolation provides protection to endangeredspecies such as the spectacled bear (Tremarctosornatus), mountain tapir (Tapirus pinchaque) andAndean condor (Vultur gryphus). The Sangayecosystem is also of great importance for itshydrological functions and soil carbon sequestra-tion potential.

Sangay is an important source of natural resourcesfor its neighbouring communities. There are fewsettlements inside the park, particularly in thesouth, but there are some 130 indigenous commu-nities (Quichuas-Puruháes in the northwest andcentral areas, Quichuas-Cañaris in the south andsouthwest, and Shuar in the south and southeast),and Mestizo peasants living in the buffer zones.This ethnic diversity is reflected in the range of tra-ditional knowledge such as stories, legends, mythsand traditional practices associated with the park.The buffer zone populations mainly practice a sub-sistence economy based upon access to and utiliza-tion of local natural resources.

Park management

Sangay National Park (SNP) is managed by the governmentof Ecuador under the Ministry of Environment and regu-lated by the Forestry and Conservation of Natural Areasand Wildlife Law (1981) and the EnvironmentalManagement Law (1999). Park management is dividedinto three administrative regions: the Andean region highzone based in Riobamba, the Amazon region low zonebased in Macas, and the south zone based in Azogues.

The concept of management effectiveness is not new tothe managers of SNP: four assessments have taken placeover the last decade:

Case Studies 4

75

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 75

• The first was undertaken as part of a process leading tothe preparation of the 1998 management plan

• An assessment was undertaken in the 1990s using DeFaria’s (1992) methodology

• In 1999, the Environment Ministry of Ecuador, with thesupport of a GEF Project, assessed the management ofthe national protected areas system and established abaseline for future reference using a modification of theDe Faria methodology

• In 2002, Fundación Natura assessed the managementeffectiveness of the park as part of the WWF-DGISTropical Forest Portfolio, using a methodology adaptedfrom the WWF-CATIE methodology (Cifuentes, et. al.2000, which itself was developed from the De Fariamethodology).

While three of these studies applied essentially the samemethodology, the criteria and variables chosen were dif-ferent, making comparison of the results difficult. Thesources of information also varied considerably. In the sec-ond and third evaluations, all information came from parkadministration and staff. For the 2002 evaluation, otherstakeholders participated, including community leaders,park administration, Biodiversity and Protected AreasDirectorate, Forestry Districts, as well as staff working withNGOs in the area. The main deficiency in all of theseassessments was that no provisions were made to imple-ment their recommendations. The final (2002) assessmentthus calls for the use of a standard methodology to allowcomparison with other World Heritage sites. This wouldfacilitate improved conservation status monitoring, evalu-ation and reporting to the Convention for the Protectionof Natural and Cultural World Heritage.

Enhancing our Heritage process

The EoH project in Sangay was coordinated by the Ministryof the Environment, Fundación Natura and EcoCiencia,working with a broad range of international, public andprivate sector organizations. Implementation began withtwo workshops organized by the IUCN offices for CentralAmerica (IUCN-ORMA) and South America (IUCN-SUR).The first introduced the project, trained key SNP stakeholders in the WCPA Management Effectiveness

Assessment Framework, and reviewed results obtainedfrom the previous assessments. The workshop wasattended by twenty-five people representing differentinstitutions (government, NGOs, communities and indige-nous groups, among others). The workshop defined theproject implementation process and identified areas of theEoH toolkit where there was sufficient information tomake an assessment, and those elements with little or noinformation. The participants also agreed on a list of workprinciples for the project:• Commitment to the conservation of SNP and its areas of

influence• The implementation process will be transparent and be

trusted• The process will promote social equity• The process will be permanent and participatory• During the process there will be inter-institutional coor-

dination, synergy and consensus• There will be reciprocity and respect in the use of the

information.

Two groups were nominated to direct implementation ofthe project: • A consultation committee, with representatives from all

the institutions directly related to SNP was responsiblefor approving the project work plan, defining and imple-menting policies, supervising the operational committee,and reviewing progress reports.

• A local team, comprising representatives from FundaciónNatura and EcoCiencia, was responsible for implement-ing the assessment work.

Stories from the field: Learning to worktogether

The main weakness identified during the first projectworkshop was the lack of experience among the repre-sented institutions in cooperating as a team. Allinvolved were committed to the park and concernedabout the future of SNP, but had never attempted towork together towards a common goal. During theworkshop, emphasis was placed upon this issue andteam-building was encouraged in all sessions. By theend of the workshop, although these barriers had notbeen completely overcome, significant progress wasmade and the group had even agreed on a joint sloganfor the project: Together for the Sangay National Park.

The local team was tasked with developing a draft assess-ment before the second workshop, which aimed to con-centrate on providing technical assistance in completingthe initial EoH assessment. The participants worked insmall groups to review progress, identify further informa-tion needs and the location and availability of data, and todiscuss information gaps. The initial assessment was pre-pared in August 2002 (Bajaña et al, 2002); however, this

Case Studies4

76

Sangay National Park, Venezuela.

© M

arc

Hoc

king

s

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 76

report relied largely on data from the earlier 2002 assess-ment using the WWF/CATIE methodology and textualcommentary on the other components of the EoH assess-ment system where the assessment team had identifiedgaps in information. These gaps (see box below for exam-ples) in the availability and quality of the informationregarding SNP management formed the basis for develop-ing monitoring and assessment processes throughout therest of the EoH project. A revised initial assessment wasprepared in 2005 using all the tools in the EoH Toolkit,addressing many of the gaps identified in the first draft.

Gaps identified in the initial assessment

Context: • Biological inventories are incomplete.• Management objectives have not been identified.• No systematized information on the site’s ethnic and

cultural diversity exists.• Only minimal information is available on the archaeol-

ogy of SNP.• Only a few studies have been carried out on the envi-

ronmental services that the site provides.• No systematized information exists on the financial

support provided by the government and national andinternational NGOs to the protected area.

Planning:• The management plan does not identify priority

activities and tasks and is not updated.• No direct links exist between the management plan,

the annual operational plans, and the monthly plansfrom the Environment Ministry.

• No information is available on the criteria or themethodology used for the management zoning in thepark, which limits its application and usefulness.

• Information on the land tenure within the park isincomplete and a strategy for land-tenure conflictsresolution does not exist.

Inputs:• No information is available regarding the inputs

required for adequate park management.• No budget for site management exists. • Financial information is dispersed and is not available

for park administrators.

Process:• Mechanisms have not been defined for implementing

recommendations from the management assessmentcarried out in 2002.

• A strategy for establishing alliances with strategicpartners needs to be designed.

Outputs:• The management plan does not include tools (indica-

tors, milestones, etc.) that allow monitoring of activities.

• Information on the accomplishment of activities in theannual operational plans are not systematized, and norecord exists of activities accomplished in previousyears preventing comparison and analysis of past performance.

Outcomes:• Management objectives and monitoring and assess-

ment mechanisms for their conservation status havenot been identified.

• Information gathered by the socio-economic monitor-ing programme for the SNP consists of baseline infor-mation; however, it does not identify tools formonitoring key elements or indicators for assessingpark management.

Implementation

The EoH assessment process brought the many stakehold-ers involved in management of the park together in a newway. Various NGOs, government agencies and communityorganizations that had not previously worked togethercooperated in undertaking the assessment. This newapproach carried on through to completion of the man-agement plan and other activities for the park. The part-ners developed joint work programmes across fivegovernmental agencies and NGOs, with funding comingfrom various internal and project sources in addition toEoH. The changes to park management over the seven-year period of the EoH project are, thus, not the result ofone project’s activities, but rather the result of a series of joint initiatives developed under this cooperativeapproach. These joint initiatives should help sustain thegeneral goal of the project agreed at the first EoH work-shop: to promote an efficient and adaptive managementapproach for SNP as a World Heritage site by incorporat-ing monitoring and evaluation tools that allow improve-ments to the park’s management.

Case Studies 4

77

Workshop to discuss management effectiveness in SangayNational Park, Ecuador.

© M

arc

Hoc

king

s

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 77

Results

The second assessment, completed in August 2007(Ministry of the Environment, 2007), was a substantiallydifferent document from the first draft of the initial assess-ment carried out in 2002. It reflected the many projects ini-tiated in SNP following the identification of the gaps inmanagement information, planning and assessment iden-tified in the first assessment.

The format of the second assessment uses a series of toolsadapted mainly from the EoH Toolkit, but also from variousallied methodologies, in particular elements of The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Action Planning (CAP)methodology. Together, these are applied to form a com-prehensive baseline for future monitoring and assessmentof SNP. The assessment reflects the major progress madeat the site over the last few years in developing more effec-tive management, monitoring and assessment systems.

Major elements of the assessment include:• Site values linked to management objectives: In 2003, as

part of the EoH Project, a study to develop managementobjectives for the park was carried out based on TNCCAP methodology (the inspiration behind EoH Tool 1)(Ministry of the Environment, 2004). The objectivesdeveloped considered both the conservation and sus-tainable use of the natural resources based on biologicaland ecological factors. The analysis also included thesocioeconomic and cultural values of the protected area.The process was developed with a range of stakeholdersincluding park rangers, managers, municipalities, com-munity representatives and support organizations suchas Fundación Natura, EcoCiencia, the NationalEnvironmental Fund and the Escuela Superior Politécnicade Chimborazo (ESPOCH). Table 4.1 below lists the eightvalues identified in the process. The second assessmentdocument shows how these values are representedwithin the twelve specific objectives of the park and howthey relate to the criteria for which the park was origi-nally nominated as a World Heritage site.

The development of values and objectives for the park hasbeen a major output of the EoH project in Sangay. Theseprovide the foundation for the assessment of manage-ment effectiveness and are crucial to the ongoing reviewof the management plan.

• Threats: the second assessment also includes a compre-hensive assessment of the threats facing the newly-defined park values. The three major threats to Sangayare cattle herding, agriculture and uncontrolled tourism,and the two most threatened values are the Tungurahuavolcano and sacred/prohibited sites.

• Inputs: Although identified as a major challenge in theinitial assessment, the second assessment includes anevaluation of both staff needs and budget/fundingsources. The assessment records fairly good levels ofstaff training overall, but there are far less contractedpark guards than required and their level of training isinsufficient. The assessment also records budget short-falls – particularly in the southern zone of the park,which receives less external funding.

• Processes: The aim of the process assessment is for pro-tected areas to develop basic management performancestandards. In Sangay, the development of standards wasa participatory process including the involvement of stafffrom the park, regional offices, protected area andwildlife offices of the Environment Ministry, plus repre-sentatives from communities associated with the man-agement of the area, as well as other outside expertsthat have worked with the park. The overall rating indi-cates that park management is ‘good’ (on a scale ofpoor, regular, good and very good).

• Outputs: An assessment of the level of implementationof the administrative plan was carried out using the cat-egories suggested for monitoring implementation of themanagement plan in the EoH Toolkit. The assessmentwas carried out in the three management zones of thepark. Overall the results showed progress on 70% of theactions in the management plan.

• Outcomes: As suggested in the EoH toolkit, the assess-ment of outcomes in the second assessment of SNPincludes two sections: firstly, biodiversity health is

Case Studies4

78

Biodiversity

Other natural

Cultural

Financial

Andean bear and tapir

Threatened native forests (‘Guarumal’, ’Colepato‘, ’Llusín‘ and those near the Guamote-Macas road)

Sangay Volcano

Tungurahua Volcano

Camino del Inca (Capaq Ñan – ’Inca Trail’)

Sacred or prohibited natural sites

Lake systems with visitation potential (Osogoche, Sardinayacu, Atillo, Culebrillas, and Altar)

Microwatersheds that generate identified environmental services

Table 4.1: Main values of SNP

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 78

assessed using an adaptation of the TNC CAP method-ology, and secondly, additional information is providedon the assessment of specific management objectivesfollowing research and monitoring projects. The resultsof a variety of projects undertaken with the help of EoH,as well as other projects implemented by the FundaciónNatura and the Ministry of the Environment, were usedto evaluate the achievement of the management objec-tives of SNP. Projects included a land-use and vegetativecover analysis of the western zone around the GuamoteMacas Highway (Fundación Natura, 2004) and a base-line study to obtain hydrological and biological informa-tion on the microwatersheds of the Osogoche in order todevelop a simple monitoring method for local communi-ties to apply. The biodiversity health assessment wasbased on information from monitoring programmesdeveloped in 2006 to collect information on key speciesof fauna and flora, especially the threatened spectacledbear and tapir, and on tourist activities, primarily in thehigh zone where visitation is greatest (i.e. the volcanoesof Sangay and Altar).

Impacts

As well as developing management, monitoring andassessment initiatives in Sangay, work on managementeffectiveness resulted in a range of additional benefits forthe park, particularly relating to its World Heritage status.

World Heritage Reporting

The lack of basic information on SNP identified in the ini-tial assessment highlighted the problems faced in report-ing the status of the site to the World Heritage Centre. Itwas noted in the Second EoH Assessment Report that theUNESCO Periodic Report for Sangay was completed withlittle baseline information and that future reporting willthus be greatly assisted by the development of this report.The report on management effectiveness also providedIUCN with data on the status of the park during ReactiveMonitoring (see box).

Stories from the field: Providing accurate baseline data for World Heritage reporting

At the time of its inscription as a World Heritage site in1983, the Sangay National Park (SNP) was experiencingminimum human intervention, and no significantthreats to its conservation had been identified.However, in 1992 Sangay was added to the list ofWorld Heritage in Danger, mainly due to concern overimpacts from the construction of the Guamote-MacasRoad which crosses a corner of the World Heritage site.

The development of detailed EoH assessment reportsaided the implementation of recommendations madeby the UNESCO and IUCN missions to SNP. The revised

initial assessment prepared in 2005 was a key input tothe joint UNESCO-IUCN mission reviewing the status ofthe site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. One ofthe members of this mission who had conducted anumber of such reviews for World Heritage in Dangersites indicated that the EoH report provided a clear andcomprehensive picture of park management strengthsand weaknesses, and was well-regarded by missionmembers. This review mission later led to the removalof Sangay National Park from the List of World Heritagein Danger at the World Heritage Committee meeting in 2005.

Management planning

The initial assessment highlighted the need to significantlyrevise the management plan to take account of a broadersuite of values, management objectives and threats.Various planning documents have been developed in orderto update the park management plan. First, it was neces-sary to identify the management objectives that serve asfocal points for activities in the plan. Once these wereidentified, the planning process began to create the park’sadministrative plan which was then completed by a finan-cial plan. It is still necessary to develop a new park planningtool as the current administrative plan only covers theperiod 2005–07. Inputs from the second managementeffectiveness evaluation will be used to guide the develop-ment of the new plan in 2008. The management planningprocess developed in Sangay through the EoH project hasbeen adopted by other protected areas in Ecuador as amodel for planning.

Impacts beyond the park

The development of a management effectiveness evalu-ation framework for SNP has led the Ministry ofEnvironment and other actors to indicate their intentionto expand this analysis to all protected areas in the coun-try. Advances in this park and others will help Ecuadormeet its obligations agreed at the Convention onBiological Diversity’s 7th Conference of Parties as well asthe recommendations resulting from the World ParksCongress in Durban with respect to national efforts toevaluate protected area management effectiveness.


Bajaña, F., Rivas, J., Sánchez, D. and Suárez, L. 2002.Initial Evaluation Report of Sangay National Park as aWorld Heritage Site. Ministry of the Environment,Fundación Natura, EcoCiencia and IUCN-South America.Quito, Ecuador.

Cifuentes, M, Izurieta, A. and de Faria, H. 2000.Measuring protected area management effectiveness,WWF, GTZ and IUCN, Tacuarembo, Costa Rica.

Case Studies 4

79

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 79

Courrau, J. 2002. Internal EoH report: EoH SangayProgress Review Report, EoH project, University ofQueensland, Australia.

de Faria, H. 1993. Elaboración de un Procedimiento paramedir la efectividad de manejo de áreas silvestres prote-gidas y su aplicación en dos áreas protegidas de CostaRica. Tesis Magister Scientiae. CATIE, Turrialba, CostaRica, 91p.

Fundación Natura. 2004. Uso del suelo y cobertura vegetal 1:10000 de la vertiente oriental de la carreteraGuamote Macas, en zona comprendida entre la lagunaNegra y la población de Nueve de Octubre, Provincia deMorona Santiago. Estudio realizado por Segarra, P.,Espíndola, F., Almeida, A., Arias, A., Ministerio delAmbiente, Fundación Natura, Corporación EcoPar, Quito,Ecuador.

Ministry of the Environment .2004. Objetos focales demanejo del Parque Nacional Sangay. Proyecto MejorandoNuestra Herencia: Ministerio del Ambiente, FundaciónNatura, EcoCiencia y UICN-Sur. Preparado por: Bajaña, F.And Rivas, J. (Fundación Natura). Quito, Ecuador.

Ministry of the Environment .2007. Second Report:Assessment on Management Effectiveness of SangayNational Park as A World Heritage Site. Improving ourHeritage Project: Ministry of the Environment, NaturaFoundation, EcoCiencia, and IUCN-South. Quito,Ecuador.

Rivas, J. 2002. Internal EoH report: Experience of under-taking management effectiveness monitoring and report-ing in Sangay National Park (Ecuador) and the role of theEoH project, experience to date; Proyecto Sangay,Fundacion Natura, Quito, Ecuador.

Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda

Park profile

Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (BINP) covers33,092 ha in southwest Uganda within the AlbertineRift ecological zone. The park is rugged and moun-tainous; more than half the park rises over 2000 m.The park’s rare afromontane vegetation provides oneof the richest habitats in East Africa for birds, butter-flies (over 300 species), trees and mammals; the latterincludes chimpanzees and half the world’s remainingmountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) popula-tion. Sectors of the forest have been protected sincethe 1930s. The National Park was gazetted in 1991and inscribed on the World Heritage list in 1994 as asite of outstanding universal value for biologicaldiversity and conservation of threatened species (cri-terion x) and as an area of exceptional natural beauty(criterion vii). BINP is not a pristine system and muchof the forest has been disturbed by logging and otheractivities. Over 100,000 people live in the areas imme-diately surrounding the park at a density of over 300people/km2. The edges of the park are generallymarked by abrupt boundaries and change into farm-land. The steepness of the landscape makes clearedand disturbed areas very prone to erosion.

BINP is managed by the Uganda Wildlife Authority(UWA) with the prime purpose of conserving themontane forests and their associated wildlife popula-tions, particularly the gorillas. All other functions,including tourism – which focuses almost entirely ongorilla watching – are secondary. Tourism, however,provides a major source of income for BINP and UWA,and 20% of the park’s revenue from entrance fees ispaid to the district’s local governments within whichthe park occurs as a contribution towards meetingthe basic social and economic needs of the local peo-ple. The park is the site of one of the first conserva-tion trust funds in Africa, established to both supportpark management and local community develop-ment. The Mgahinga and Bwindi ImpenetrableForest Conservation Trust (MBIFCT) was established inthe mid-1990s with a grant of US$4 million, whichhad grown to US$7 million by 1996. Local communi-ties have a significant say in how the income from theMBIFCT is distributed and many community projectssuch as schools and health centres have been supported.

Park management

Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (BINP) is managed bythe Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) primarily: ‘To safe-guard the biodiversity and integrity of the physical andecological processes of BINP in perpetuity for health,

Case Studies4

80

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 80

welfare, enjoyment and inspiration of the present andfuture generation’.

Park management is based around key activities whichinclude:• Research and monitoring programmes: aimed at ensur-

ing gorilla and other animal welfare, ecosystem health(e.g. control of fires), resource use by communities andmitigating impacts of crop-raiding by wildlife.

• Community and development programmes: throughachieving the long-term conservation goal of the park byaddressing community support and participation in themanagement of the park and its resources through fourseparate programmes. Programmes include crop raidingcontrol, revenue sharing (20% of the park’s revenuefrom entrance fees is directed towards meeting the basicsocial and economic needs of the local people), conser-vation education, and a multiple-use programme (20%of the park area has been reserved for sustainableresource use).

• Tourism development programme: aimed at developingand implementing controlled gorilla tourism and diversi-fying tourism activities to reduce dependence on gorillasand increase revenue. Activities include a network oftourist trails for eco-tourism in the park’s tourism zones,plus other infrastructure to address staff and visitorneeds; and improving publicity and marketing of tourismattractions in BINP. Gorilla-tracking currently accountsfor 99% of BINP revenues.

• Protection and resource management: through achiev-ing protection through law enforcement.

UWA’s major partners in BINP are the local community anddistrict authorities, the Rwanda and Congo governments(the park borders the Congo and is close to Rwanda, andboth countries have gorilla populations), and NGOsincluding the Mgahinga and Bwindi Impenetrable ForestConservation Trust (MBIFCT), CARE, and the Institute ofTropical Forest Conservation (ITFC).

Enhancing our Heritage process

Following a field visit and attendance at a five-day work-shop, in July 2001, introducing the EoH project to repre-sentatives from all the project sites in Africa, UWA

identified a site implementation team comprising: JohnMakombo, at that time Chief Warden of BINP, AlastairMcNeilage, Director of ITFC and Ghad Mugiri, then BINPWarden responsible for Research and Monitoring and laterBINP Chief Warden, with additional assistance from the UWA Monitoring and Research Coordinator and the Planning and Environment Impact AssessmentCoordinator. It was agreed that the major site partnerwould be ITFC, but that other important partners involvedin implementation would include CARE, MBIFCT, IGCP, theCommunity Protected Area Institution (CPI) representingneighbouring communities, Community Tourism represen-tatives, institutions of higher learning and conservationists.

In August 2001, a workshop was held in Bwindi with allrelevant park staff to introduce the project and the tools inthe EoH Toolkit. A second workshop was held inSeptember 2001, attended mainly by NGOs working inand around Bwindi (i.e. ITFC, CARE and members of theInternational Gorilla Conservation Project), to draft anassessment.

An Initial Assessment Report on Management Effectivenessin BINP was published in August 2002 (Uganda WildlifeAuthority, 2002) following a stakeholder workshop to dis-cuss the draft assessment. Prior to this workshop, all parkstaff underwent a three-month refresher course, betweenSeptember 2001 and July 2002, on basic natural resourceconservation principles and ethics including monitoring andevaluation. In the same period, the UWA Management infor-mation System (MIST) developed for purposes of monitoringmanagement effectiveness, among others, was installed inBwindi and staff trained in its use and maintenance.

Following discussions of the report with Moses Mapesa(then Director of Field Operations for UWA and currentlyUWA Director) in January 2003, a second assessment wascarried in May 2003 (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2003).This second assessment emphasized the involvement oflocal partners in the process and a workshop was con-vened with local communities, ensuring input into theassessment itself and clarity on how the results of the eval-uation would be used by UWA.

The Initial Assessment documented the effort put intorestructuring the management of BINP in recent years,that is, a well-trained upper level of management, moni-toring through the MIST system, and good communityrelations. The assessment did, however, reveal some areaswhich needed improvement to facilitate the better man-agement of BINP; including the need to address inade-quate information on the biological resources anddynamics of the park, inadequate levels of staffing andinfrastructure, and low levels of staff training at less seniorlevels. The report concluded that ‘with or withoutUNESCO/the EoH project we need to evaluate ourselves’and provided some recommended actions for the comingyears.

Case Studies 4

81

Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda.

© M

arc

Hoc

king

s

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 81

In the subsequent period, UWA staff initiated develop-ment of an evaluation tool for assessing the adequacy ofstaff numbers, staff training and park infrastructure andequipment, which has been integrated within the EoHtoolkit. The structure of the EoH management effective-ness evaluation system and the results of assessments havebeen used to help structure discussion at UWA annualmeetings of Chief Wardens.

The final assessment workshop took place in 2007, with anew Chief Warden, Asa Kule, in charge of the park, butwith the involvement of the previous Chief Warden, GhadMugiri. The involvement of staff with previous experiencein the assessments in Bwindi emphasized the need for con-tinued training and capacity-building amongst staff toequip them with the knowledge and skills needed to con-duct an evaluation. It cannot be assumed that a toolkitalone will be sufficient to enable new staff to apply themethodology.

Implementation

A key component of the EoH project was to supportenhanced management of the sites based on needs iden-tified through the management effectiveness assessmentprocess. An assessment with no follow-up action is of lim-ited use to site managers and their willingness to spendtime and resources on the assessment process will quicklydiminish. The examples below illustrate how an assess-ment can be used to identify specific actions that will leadto improvements in management.

Gorilla-based tourism provides a major source of incomefor Bwindi, UWA and the local population. However, thepark management and Bwindi-based ITFC recognise theneed for knowledge and assessment of a far wider rangeof species and interactions. The EoH project has thus pro-vided funds to help update vegetation maps, assessendemic species – especially lesser known plants and ani-mals, research the sustainability of local non-timber forest

product harvesting and assess systems that monitor suchharvesting, and evaluate methods for minimizing crop-raiding by wild animals, including the research and testingof new methods and deterrents.

One of the issues highlighted in the initial assessment wasthat information on use of non-timber forest products(NTFP) was scant and required further research. Inresponse, eight community consultation meetings wereconvened by UWA and ITFC staff, resulting in recommen-dations for revision of the monitoring programme, and theupdating of community memorandums of understanding(MoUs) on resource use in the park. Four groups of indige-nous people (the Batwa) were involved in this review. Thiswas a major step as the Batwa had not previously takenpart in the programme, and discussions revealed that theresources they sought access to differed from other com-munity groups, including wild yams, wild honey andmedicinal plants. The meetings confirmed that demand forforest resources remains high and continued monitoring is important. ITFC is thus developing monitoring pro-grammes for three plant species (Ocotea usambarensis,Rytigynia kigeziensis and Loeseneriella apocynoides) thatare used for medicine and craft materials. Monitoring (per-manent plots monitored on an annual basis) of these threeplants is now ongoing with the establishment of sustain-able harvest levels. (Bitariho et al., 2006). New plantresources (Dioscorea minutiflora, Dioscorea astericus andPrunus africana) are also now being monitored and har-vestable quotas/quantities developed. Eleven draft MoUshave been completed which incorporate the needs of theindigenous people.

Another equally important issue relating directly to themanagement of the park and the relationship between thepark and local communities highlighted in the first assess-ments was the need to deal more effectively with crop-raiding by animals, including elephants and gorillas, fromthe park. The EoH project helped finance field trials ondeterrents and study tours to review practices elsewhere inAfrica. Activities were carried out in collaboration withITFC and CARE to identify potential new problem-animalcontrol strategies, both in the context of the managementof the new Nkuringo buffer zone, and other possible sitesaround Bwindi. In 2002–03, ITFC carried out initial site vis-its in Nkuringo regarding the development of a monitoringsystem for crop-raiding levels, to establish a baseline andallow the effectiveness of new interventions to be assessedover time. Live fences as a deterrent to problem animalsmoved from being tested as a pilot project to implemen-tation by UWA. Some 33 km of the Mauritius thorn fencewere established in Kanungu area, and further plantingwas planned. Dealing with crop-raiding by elephants andgorillas, however, remained a challenge. So in phase 3 ofthe project, EoH funded a study tour to Kenya, where a redpepper solution has been used as an effective deterrent.Following the study tour, four trial plots of red chilli wereestablished in the southern part of the park (Rushaga) todeter crop-raiding. By 2007, the chilli had matured andwas proving effective in controlling elephants. Roll-out of

Case Studies4

82

Gorilla tourism is the major funding source for BwindiImpenetrable National Park, Uganda.

© M

arc

Hoc

king

s

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 82

the red chilli has now started and will be ongoing beyondthe project life; plans are also underway to use the samestrategy in Ruhija for control of elephants. The establish-ment of Artemisia as a way of controlling problem gorillasis reported to be successful in Nkuringo with over twentyfarmers having planted the crop. Continued establishmentof Mauritius hedge is being undertaken in Nkuringo tocontrol gorilla movements.

At the review of the first stage of the EoH project at theWorld Parks Congress in Durban (attended by representa-tives of all sites involved in the project) a consistentrequest made by all sites was for greater linkagesbetween regional World Heritage sites. The EoH projectthus funded two study tours in East Africa with staff fromBINP and UWA visiting Serengeti in 2006, and Serengetistaff visiting Bwindi in 2007. The focus of the 2006 tripwas for UWA to review in particular the Serengeti VisitorCentre, given the plans to develop a visitor centre atBwindi. The trip resulted in several important recommen-dations for the planning of the visitor centre (see box).

Recommendations/lessons learnt fromstudy tour in relation to BNIP visitor centre

• A monitoring and evaluation plan for the Bwindi visi-tor centre needs establishing from the onset.

• Visitor centre facilities should be planned to take careof future visitor projection based on peak seasons.

• Design of the visitor centre design needs to take intoaccount the needs of the disabled, e.g. adequate toi-let facilities and wheelchair access.

• Electronic gorilla and elephant sounds could beinstalled at the visitor centre.

• A maintenance plan for the visitor centre should be inplace from the onset.

• The planning and implementation process for the visi-tor centre requires a participatory approach.

• Interpretive materials should be developed taking intoaccount the major nationalities that visit BINP. Also,relevant park staff should be trained in working withdifferent languages.

• Accommodation and other facilities within Nkwendaand Buhoma should be reviewed and maintain thesame good standards as the planned visitor centre.

• All tourism activities within the park should be pack-aged under one payment fee to avoid the inconven-ience of multiple charges.

In 1996, the Government of Uganda developed a newwildlife policy, which emphasizes the need for business-oriented management of wildlife resources and estates.UWA has since formulated a corporate strategic plan. Allten national parks now have management plans, as do fiveof the twelve wildlife reserves. Since 2001, annual opera-tional plans have been prepared and implemented for all

protected areas. However, at present no business planshave been finalized due to a lack of institutional capacityfor this type of planning. UWA hired a consultant toundertake business planning at a corporate level, but therewas no process in place to develop business plans for indi-vidual national parks or specific projects, and no process tobuild capacity in business planning across the organiza-tion. As part of the UNESCO/Shell Business Skill Plan project (see Appendix 1), agreement was reached to assistUWA managers in completing a three-year business planfor the Bwindi-Mgahinga Conservation Area (BMCA).Following the first training visit, a draft covering CompanyAnalysis, Market Analysis, Marketing Plan and RiskAnalysis sections had been prepared by UWA, but finalfeedback from Shell had yet to be incorporated.

Vegetation mapping: following certain difficulties, 0.5 mresolution aerial photographs were obtained for the wholepark; these which are now being digitized on the basis ofstructural classification, and stratified by altitude, provid-ing baseline data. The intent is to use satellite imagery inthe future to measure vegetation changes against thisbaseline. ITFC carried out an initial analysis of the photo-graphs to prepare digital orthophotos to facilitate prepa-ration of the vegetation map. A habitat classificationsystem has also been developed, along with detailedmethods for ground-truthing fieldwork.

Results and impacts

The final assessment report for the site includes a compar-ison with the initial assessment report as well as identify-ing remaining gaps and challenges. This provides anopportunity to assess both how site condition and sitemanagement have changed over the intervening period,and also where the EoH process has been able to make acontribution. Key points are summarized below in relationto some of the EoH assessment tools.

• Identifying site values and management objectivesTool 1 provides a mechanism for capturing and updatinginformation as it becomes available. For Bwindi, informa-tion is still lacking on certain species’ population sizes,although the EoH project has contributed to continuingwork on rapid ecological assessment and survey.Additional information is also required on the value of theforest as a carbon sink, for water catchment, and as asource of non-timber forest products. This process ofupdating knowledge is enhanced by the involvement ofresearchers such as ITFC in the management effectivenessassessment process. Linking management objectives toidentified site values helps ensure conservation strategiesare focused on effectively contributing to maintainingthese values.

• Identifying threatsMore threats were identified in the final assessment in2007 than in the initial 2002 assessment, but this is attrib-uted to enhanced involvement of stakeholders, leading torecognition of threats that were not previously apparent to

Case Studies 4

83

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 83

managers, as well as improvement in the EoH toolkitassessment tool, providing better guidance for identifica-tion of existing and potential threats. The assessment rec-ognized that certain threats, such as crop-raiding andpoaching are difficult to eradicate, but that analysis ofthreats can help in developing strategies to reduce theirimpact and spread.

• Relationships with stakeholdersUWA has placed a lot of emphasis on working with com-munities and improving relationships with stakeholders,and the results of this work are reflected in the final assess-ment. Improvements in working relations with local gov-ernments and communities were highlighted, as well as anincrease in the number of stakeholders involved in the site.The utility of the assessment tool in developing a clearunderstanding of the interests and issues of stakeholdergroups was noted.

• Planning and site design assessmentsThe improved information that came from enhanced con-tribution of stakeholders through a more participatoryassessment process was noted in relation to both the plan-ning and design assessments.

• Inputs assessmentThe final assessment notes that shortfalls in staff capacity,training, equipment and infrastructure needs remain aproblem at the site. Staff capacity and training gaps areexacerbated by staff transfers and resignations, highlight-ing the need for continued training. BINP is relatively wellfunded (85% of estimated needs), deriving a large part ofits revenue from gorilla tourism. Indeed the park supportsmanagement of many other sites in Uganda that do nothave the same capacity to raise funds through tourism.

• Outputs assessmentBINP is progressing well with the implementation of bothits general management plan and annual work pro-grammes. More than 85% of the actions in the manage-ment plan have been completed or are showingsubstantial progress. The MIST monitoring and informa-tion system provides detailed information that can be usedto assess many aspects of the management programmesuch as patrol coverage, detection of illegal activities, aswell as natural resource information.

• Outcomes assessmentOutcome monitoring reveals a generally positive picture ofconservation outcomes at the site. Gorilla populationsincreased from 320 in 2002 to 340 in 2006. During theproject, BINP were able to more specifically define targetsfor indicators, although some work remains to be done asoutlined above. Ten of the thirteen indicators wereassessed as being in good condition with nine showing apositive trend. Concern was expressed about the conditionof two indicators where the trend in condition is declining.Information was lacking on one indicator.

Stories from the field: A manager’s perspective

Moses Mapesa, Director, Uganda Wildlife Authority,gave the following evaluation of the overall EoHprocess. He noted that the overall process provided anopportunity for in-house evaluation and evaluation bypartners (outsiders) at a relatively low monetary cost.The process of assessment specifically highlighted thefollowing:

• In-house staff has tremendous potential to take onvarious roles at relatively low costs. They are able tocomprehend the system of assessment and undertakeit once given a few tips.

• The process provides an opportunity to review man-agement values, objectives, approaches and targets,and allows for a re-focusing of efforts on criticalareas.

• The process can also be used for more positive evalua-tions of individual staff efforts. Many times, staff arescared of evaluations, and will even tell lies for fear ofjob security. But when they undertake the evaluationthemselves this leads to more honest responses, par-ticularly when they know that it will not result in victimization.

• The partners, especially community members andleaders who have often been very critical of manage-ment (and sometimes antagonistic) were very support-ive and objective during the assessment. This wasbecause the process provided them with an opportu-nity to gain information on management and inter-ventions, including constraints and challenges andthey are now able to give their assessment from aninformed standpoint.

• Fortunately for Bwindi, the partners had already beeninvolved in the planning process. The evaluationtherefore provided a participatory feedback mecha-nism, moreover with field visits as opposed to writtenreports, which some officers lack the time to study.

• Compared to an external evaluation by a team ofexperts, this process is affordable and practical. In anycase, external evaluation reports are sometimesrejected or explained away by management, whilegood recommendations are not taken on board. Onthe other hand, external evaluations still rely on thesame people (staff and partners) who compile a reportto their own credit, which can cause staff to feelcheated.

• The process brings together all stakeholders involvedin the management of the site and allows for a sec-ond opportunity following joint annual operationsplanning to review who has done what, ensure com-plementarity and avoid duplication.

Case Studies4

84

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 84


Bitariho, R., McNeilage, A., Babaasa, D. and Barigyira, R.2006. Plant harvest impacts and sustainability in BwindiImpenetrable National Park, S.W. Uganda. AfricanJournal of Ecology, 44 (1): 14–21.

Uganda Wildlife Authority. 2002. Initial AssessmentReport for Management Effectiveness at BwindiImpenetrable National Park. Uganda Wildlife Authorityunpublished report available athttp://whc.unesco.org/en/eoh.

Uganda Wildlife Authority. 2007. Enhancing our HeritageFinal Assessment: Bwindi Impenetrable National Park.Uganda Wildlife Authority unpublished report available athttp://whc.unesco.org/en/eoh.

Case Studies 4

85

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 85

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 86

87

Applying the Enhancing ourHeritage Toolkit to Cultural

World Heritage Sites

Ensuring the artistic and architectural integrity of very old structures is a constant challenge

for many cultural World Heritage sites such as in Fatehpur Sikri, India.

© Marc Patry

5PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 87

Current conditions at cultural sites

Cultural heritage is vast and varied and reflects how soci-eties have adapted to different natural settings throughtime. Diversity is also reflected in characteristic landscapesand expressed in the intangible heritage resulting fromsyncretism in beliefs, rituals, languages, music and dancethat give life to material referents.

This diversity in styles, materials, architecture, culturalexpressions and so on, entails significant challenges bothin understanding and addressing deterioration, but also interms of theoretical approaches for the conservation oftheir distinct values. What is defined as heritage today hasevolved in meaning, depth and extent. In recent decadesthere has been a desire to move away from a ‘monumen-tal’ and static view towards a more comprehensive anddiversified perception of the wealth of human cultures,embodied in such themes as twentieth-century architec-ture, modes of occupation of land and space, industrialtechnology, subsistence strategies, water management,routes for people and goods, and traditional settlementsand their environments.

Consequently, conserving and managing cultural heritageis a challenging task. Generally speaking, heritage profes-sionals are faced with issues that can be categorized, per-haps in simplistic terms, in two broad areas: those relatedto the impact of natural processes on the material fabric,including climate change, and those related to the socialcontext, including aspects such as management capabili-ties, resources, governance, participatory approaches andintegration of social and economic values, amongst oth-ers. Some of these can be considered worldwide trends,but these are also reflective of local situations that areclosely related and interdependent. In terms of natural fac-tors, there are diverse interacting environmental condi-tions, which vary in each heritage site and its setting,which generate physical and chemical mechanisms thatlead to the decay of materials.

To date, there are still significant gaps in knowledgeregarding deterioration phenomena, particularly on theimpacts of climate change. And there remain importantdeficiencies in implementing comprehensive plans at her-itage places: interventions tend to be reactive and lackingsystematic documentation and analysis, and there is lim-ited monitoring, so data is difficult to assess without com-parative tools. Most conservation assessments continue tobe too general and do not allow for a strategic, sustained,long-term action plan that comprehensively responds andadapts to the complexity of factors that interact at her-itage sites.

Besides these factors, other significant issues that affectthe rate and extent of decay evidenced at cultural sitesinclude land tenure issues, uncontrolled urban and ruralexpansion, lack of social appropriation of heritage, lack ofrecognition of derived benefits of heritage conservation,and looting and vandalism, amongst others. Funding isalso a problem.

Although most countries have adequate policies and leg-islation that provide a framework for heritage decisions,means are still inadequate to effectively implement them.Inter-institutional collaboration, cooperation and commu-nication are limited among agencies that have mandatesimpacting cultural sites.

All these issues have hindered the formulation of a com-prehensive approach toward the conservation of WorldHeritage sites, which reconciles the needs and expecta-tions of diverse interest groups and fosters a participatoryapproach to the conservation and protection of sites.Given the political situation and the limited resources inmost regions of the world, it is necessary to ‘sensitize’ deci-sion-makers to the need for conservation and manage-ment policies that would lend support to mid-levelmanagers to make changes in policies and practices.

Brief overview of Enhancing our Heritage key aimsand approaches

Monitoring and evaluation are increasingly viewed as crit-ical components for the management of heritage places.The assessment of management effectiveness has threemajor applications: adaptive management – to improveperformance within protected areas; accountability – to assist reporting by site and system managers; andimproved project planning – to review approaches andapply lessons learned.

The Enhancing our Heritage (EoH) project, sought toimprove the management of natural World Heritage sitesthrough the development of better monitoring and report-ing systems, and through using the application of theresults of these assessments to enhance site management.

Applying the Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit to Cultural World Heritage Sites

Applying the Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit to Cultural World Heritage Sites Carolina Castellanos

5

88

The crowds at Kiyomizu-dera, part of the Ancient Kyoto WorldHeritage Site in Japan.

© S

ue S

tolto

n

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 88

Applying the Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit to Cultural World Heritage Sites 5

89

Natural processes

Management context

Social context

Governance

• Climate change• Environmental conditions: temperature, humidity, winds, etc.

• Inadequate capacity and skills• Limited professional and technical exchange• Deficient methodologies, criteria and guidelines• Inappropriate conservation interventions/or use of incompatible materials• Inadequate buffer zone management• Negligence and abandonment of heritage sites• Partial interdisciplinary and participatory methodologies and approach• Absence of planning, monitoring and evaluation• Insufficient risk preparedness• Inadequate values and significance assessment.

• Land tenure• Illegal use of heritage sites• Uncontrolled urban and rural expansion• Social degradation and poverty, limited social appropriation of heritage• Inadequate attention to indigenous rights• Looting• Vandalism• Uncontrolled tourism.

• Outdated legislation and ineffective implementation of policies and legislation• Inadequate institutional arrangements; centralization and rigid structures for decision-making• Discontinuity in entities and lack of institutional memory• Insufficient cooperation and communication amongst government agencies; overlap in responsibili-

ties and mandates• Limited synergies and strategic alliances amongst heritage entities• Insufficient territorial and systems planning; heritage not integrated in other levels of planning• Partial awareness regarding benefits of heritage conservation and role in poverty alleviation, quality

of life and social equity.

Table 5.1: Summary of critical factors affecting heritage conservation andmanagement

Based upon the six elements outlined in IUCN’s WorldCommission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Framework forAssessing Management Effectiveness (context, planning,inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes) the projectdeveloped an assessment toolkit (see previous chapters)suitable for World Heritage sites, after testing in nine pilotsites across three continents.

Monitoring management effectiveness for culturalsites and the benefits of the EoH approach

As mentioned above, conditions at cultural heritage placesare deteriorating in many sites across the world; planningis minimal and operational and consistent managementsystems are not in place. There is a pressing need for inno-vative solutions in a field plagued by a number of prob-lems, including frequent changes in managementstructures, funding constraints and the lack of a compre-hensive approach toward the management and conserva-tion of sites. These include the promotion of participatoryprocesses and the creation of non-governmental organi-zations that support heritage endeavours which can con-stitute viable alternatives for the long-term conservation ofsites. Communities and other organized social groups fre-quently express their interest in sites; these need to betaken into account to foster an active involvement indiverse conservation tasks. Also, the benefits of heritage

need to be explored, in order not only to deter currentpractices that impact sites, but also to have a positiveimpact on the recognition of site values and enhancehuman development.

However, without a precise assessment method, it is diffi-cult to illustrate the success of different actions. If culturalsites are considered as part of a system, achievementsneed to be illustrated or evaluated at various levels (munic-ipal, state, national, regional, global), particularly in regardto benefits provided through effective and appropriateconservation and management practices. There are manynew instruments and methodologies available, and whilethese instruments are not readily applicable to WorldHeritage, they deserve to be considered and should provehelpful to evaluating the existing sites and to developing acoherent approach to cultural heritage management.

The EoH approach could be highly beneficial for culturalsites, in that it is based upon a flexible framework wheredifferent tools can be applied according to the specificcomponent to be assessed. It allows the monitoring andevaluation of different criteria, but it also enables the identification of interdependent factors - an importantconsideration given the complex issues related to the conservation and management of heritage sites. Anotherimportant consideration is that values and significance are the driving forces behind decision-making in cultural

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 89

heritage conservation and management. But these valuesare not static; they are relative to time, space and the dif-ferent social groups that participate in ascribing them. Thevariety of tools that can be utilized within the frameworkenables us to gauge whether significance is effectivelybeing conserved and promoted.

Management decisions and interventions will affect howheritage is perceived, understood and interpreted, andalso how it will be transmitted to future generations.Constant changes in social conditions and their impact oncultural processes and communities influence and deter-mine the role of heritage conservation in the socialagenda. The feasibility and success of heritage conserva-tion in the future will rest largely on consideringapproaches that invest in natural, human and social capi-tals - approaches which understand the relationshipbetween values and society, the implications and chal-lenges of employing a value-driven process, and the decisions that impact cultural systems, on the strongerexamination of why conserve heritage and for whom, but,most importantly, on the ability to anticipate and managechange.

Can the EoH methodology be applied to cultural heritage sites?

The current trend is to develop one approach to WorldHeritage sites rather than developing separate cultural andnatural site systems. However, the idea of adapting lessonslearnt and methodological approaches from the naturalheritage field to cultural heritage is not unique.

The EoH approach can be adapted to cultural heritage byunderstanding how the six elements of the assessmentframework are similar to approaches already used in theculture field. The following figure tries to identify similari-ties between cultural heritage planning and the IUCNWCPA Management Effectiveness Framework.

Evidently, the elements and specific criteria for assessmentwould be different, as well as the indicators, but the over-all framework is already familiar to cultural heritage management. Notwithstanding, there would be somechallenges as the match between components might bemore precise for cultural sites managed as a single entity,but would be more complex in sites with multiple man-agement authorities. It is worth noting that conservation


90


Where are we now?



OutcomeWhat did

we achieve?




Management process


Evaluation

• Value assessment• Conditions assessment: physical fabric and context• Identification of stakeholders

• Implementation of management plan• Operating a management system

Participatory, value driven conservation management planning process

• Was significance preserved and promoted? • Is changed being managed?

Collaborative structures amongst different levels of implementationFinancial strategies

• Conservation of heritage places• Visitation well managed and informed• Contribution to human development• Enhancement of the quality of life, etc

Figure 5.1: Similarities between cultural heritage planning and the WCPA Framework.

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 90

management planning for cultural sites is still not sup-ported by many policy- and decision-makers responsiblefor heritage, who still maintain limited concepts of what‘managing’ a site is about, resulting in lack of standardpolicies or institutional mandates for participatory plan-ning. Many existing cultural management plans havenever been implemented because of deficient planningapproaches, lack of broad consultancy or inadequatestrategies for accomplishing objectives, including financ-ing, training and human development. The fact remainsthat many cultural heritage sites are ‘managed’ on a dailybasis without a plan (as an effective tool for decision-mak-ing and subsequent analysis). However, the EoH toolkitcould be easily adapted to suit a multilayered manage-ment system, by providing a diverse set of tools to be usedby management authorities across different responsibilitylevels. The EoH approach can help sites understand theneed for a holistic and participatory system, particularlywhen issues related to the efficacy and adequacy of cur-rent practices are clearly pinpointed.

Similarly, there are challenges regarding what to actuallyassess in cultural sites. Conservation of heritage sites is avalue-driven process, but these values are not only imbed-ded in the physical fabric of a place, but also in cultural sys-tems and intangible characteristics that do not lendthemselves to easy evaluation.

Another important issue is that cultural heritage manage-ment does not currently operate under a consistent andstandardized approach or framework, and theory andresearch work is still needed to develop models and frame-works that can easily be tailored to a variety of conditions.The WCPA Framework and the tools developed by the EoHproject could be an important starting point. By imple-menting these under a variety of conditions, lessons canbe learned and the critical and comparative analysis ofresults can lead to the identification of best practices.

Perhaps the biggest challenge in utilizing the approachconsists in the lack of precise indicators for monitoring andevaluation in the culture field. Considerable researchneeds to be carried out in this arena as, to date, most siteshave no systematic condition recording, and have yet toundertake comprehensive analyses of the complex interactions between factors so as to develop holisticapproaches to conservation with strategic, sustained,long-term responses. Existing practices are not standard-ized and technical skills are insufficient at most sites,although some efforts have been made to developregional glossaries in specific fields (e.g. earthen architec-ture) and to promote professional exchanges to enhancesite practices. In cultural sites, to date, there is little agree-ment on standard indicators, and monitoring is rarelyundertaken on a methodical regular basis. In most cases,monitoring is only considered for environmental condi-tions or as an administrative procedure. The absence ofclearly-defined indicators and monitoring systems hinderssystematic or objective conservation assessments, the eval-uation of impacts on values or any changes in authenticity

and integrity. Similarly, there is limited monitoring or sys-tematic condition recording carried out at most sites, soprecise rates and levels of deterioration are difficult toassess without comparative tools. However, establishingindicators can present a paradox, as these can easilybecome mere checklists that do not take into account thecomplexity of interrelated factors and the complex natureof cultural systems.

Therefore attitudes need to change towards planning andmonitoring, since both are now considered as means untothemselves - an ‘end product’ as opposed to tools toimplement management systems and to evaluate theirefficacy and adequacy.

Implementation of management plans and the subse-quent assessment are critical to continue building on exist-ing knowledge to advance methodologies and criteria, notonly for planning, but also for actual implementation, inwhich management of heritage sites considers and bal-ances conservation with use and distribution of benefits.The sustainability of plans and their implementation entailsthe ability to anticipate and manage not only change, butalso the large social participation and involvement in her-itage endeavours.

Link between the EoH approach and other WorldHeritage processes

Current reporting needs for World Heritage properties aremainly related to periodic reporting, reactive monitoringand state of conservation reports. This becomes a burden-some task when site managers, who have no manage-ment systems in place or monitoring and evaluationresults, are asked to provide information about outputsand outcomes. For more effective practices, EoH couldmake available a series of readily adaptable tools for cul-tural sites. However, none of these will be of any use untilthe values and significance of World Heritage cultural siteshave been precisely defined, including the qualities, fea-tures and associational elements that are to be evaluatedand monitored. Without this statement of OutstandingUniversal Value, it is difficult to establish the integrity ofthe sites and the degree to which conditions have affectedtheir significance, and consequently define value-drivenpolicies for interventions for the conservation of relation-ships between the sites and their setting, and for the pro-motion of social values ascribed by communities and localpopulations.

Consequently, values and physical attributes are an essen-tial tool to gauge change. These should drive managementdecisions and provide precise means for monitoring them.Although indicators could be more consistent across dif-ferent areas of the management cycles, each cultural sitewill have specific features to be monitored against.

The EoH approach could provide the basis on which toengage in replicable test cases for consistent evaluation of


91

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 91

the results of implementation and revisions of a proposedframework. Tools can easily be tailored to fit the size of thesite, the specific typologies or even a multilayered man-agement system.

Monitoring is essential to all World Heritage processes, butit should not be considered as a bureaucratic, once-in-a-lifetime task to comply with a requirement. Cultural sitemanagers and decision-makers need to embrace it as acritical tool to provide information and enhance the con-servation and management of heritage sites. It is also atool that helps facilitate compliance with reportingprocesses and avoids them becoming burdensome, time-and resource-consuming activities. It should also be con-ceived as the tool that allows management to change, topromote a proactive rather than reactive attitude towardsheritage conservation and management, and which caneffectively garner support for potential donors by showinga coherent and credible approach.

Although there will never be a single standard method,EoH is a flexible framework, easily adaptable and respon-sive to diverse typologies of cultural sites, managementcontexts, etc. Consequently, the feasibility of implement-ing an extended project to cultural heritage monitoringshould be explored.


92

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 92

93

Project to Process: the Future

6

Serengeti National Park, UR of Tanzania.

© Marc Patry

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 93

Now what?

If you have read the whole toolkit through in sequence youwill by now have made your way through what probablyseems a bewildering array of tools, diagrams, case studiesand advice. If you are a World Heritage site manager, orindeed someone working for any other kind of protectedarea, we hope that some or all of the tools might be use-ful for developing your own monitoring system.

These issues are complex and we would recommend that,wherever possible, they are introduced with some specificcapacity-building support such as a workshop; all the sitesdescribed in the case studies took part in specific trainingworkshops before starting the process of designing amonitoring system. However, for places where there arelimited funds or opportunity to do this, a number of otheroptions are available.

There is some self support material available, in addition tothis technical document. All the worksheets are availableelectronically (and we would strongly advise using them inthis form if possible); these can be downloaded from theUNESCO web site (http://whc.unesco.org/en/eoh andhttp://whc.unesco.org/fr/eoh) and are also on a CD avail-able from UNESCO World Heritage Centre, along withother papers and explanatory material, and back-upPowerPoint presentations that can be used for training.Two additional support tools have also been developed asan offshoot of the project (see Appendix 1 for moredetails): • ParkPlan is a software package developed at the

University of Queensland to facilitate easy monitoring ofimplementation of a World Heritage site managementplan. (It is designed to be suitable for any protectedarea.)

• The World Heritage Business Planning Guide hasbeen developed by the Shell Foundation to help sitesbuild up an effective business structure, based on corpo-rate models but adapted specifically to the needs of pro-tected areas.

There is also a growing body of expertise available withinWorld Heritage sites. Several of the sites who took part inthe development phase have said that they would be pre-pared to act as mentors to others wanting to develop sim-ilar systems, through site visits, taking part in workshops orthrough remote advice. Hopefully this ’in house’ expertisewill continue to grow and will help to disseminate theideas.

Monitoring and assessment systems inevitably cost somemoney (although assessments can be carried out for lessthan US$15,000) so funds will either have to be allocatedfrom existing budgets or special applications made to gov-ernments or donor bodies. In many situations at leastsome proportion of the work of recording may be possiblefrom volunteers.

Where next?

Good monitoring systems require training, resources andcapacity, but these three alone will not guarantee eithergood assessment or that the assessment will produce any-thing of value. Many World Heritage monitoring systemsare abandoned after a few years, being an easy item to cutwhenever budgets are tight or time is short. Yet assess-ments of the success of World Heritage sites show consis-tently that an effective monitoring system, coupled withcommitment to putting the findings into practice, areimportant elements of success. During the period of proj-ect development we have come to recognize a number ofimportant enabling factors that can help to ensure anassessment system is worth setting up. Some of theseseem self-evident; we list them here because many areoften not followed in practice.

• Commitment at senior levels is important: assess-ment can be seen as a threatening process in that itoften results in a mixture of good and bad news and fur-ther work for the site in terms of addressing identifiedproblems or threats. It sometimes seems like the onlyresult is to draw hostile attention to any shortcomings;some protected area assessments have for instance beenused by journalists to attack the whole concept of pro-tected areas. Senior management needs to be enthusi-astic about the positive benefits that assessment canbring, be committed to the whole process, prepared tohandle any political problems and to engage with andsupport implementation of the results.

• Capacity and engagement of staff at the site: simi-larly, site managers, staff and rangers also need to beenthusiastic. Unless external evaluators are used (whichitself brings costs and some problems) then the accuracyand hence the point of the assessment relies to a largeextent on the commitment of site staff. Imposing anassessment without winning the support of local man-agers is likely to prove problematic.

• Include agency staff and external stakeholders: allthe assessments discussed in this toolkit can involveexternal stakeholders in their review, including in partic-ular local communities. Again, this needs commitment:local people will often highlight what they think is wrongabout a site and assessments can bring hostility to thesurface. At the same time, to a large extent the long-term future of natural World Heritage sites or other pro-tected areas depends on building up a supportiveenvironment; seeking and listening to local and otherstakeholders is essential to this.

• A long time period is needed for institutionaliza-tion: developing a monitoring system is not just a caseof running a couple of workshops and handing over amanual and some CDs. Good assessment systems needto develop from being seen as an additional, often exter-nal, project to being a standard part of everyday man-

Project to Process: the Future6

94

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 94

agement. This process usually takes at best several yearsto achieve.

• Refer to site values, threats and accepted site man-agement: as stressed throughout, a good monitoringsystem is based upon and constantly refers back to aclear set of values, management objectives and criteria,which are all well-understood by staff. If such things arenot available – for example, if site values have neverbeen clearly articulated (in theory this should be impos-sible in the case of a World Heritage site) or if there is noviable management plan, then getting these things rightshould be a higher priority than setting up a monitoringsystem, which should wait until it can build on a solidmanagement framework. The set of methodologiesdescribed here should not be used as a way of short-cutting essential management efforts.

• Standards for management: part of the process ofestablishing a good framework should be the agreementof management standards against which to measureeffectiveness. Some of these will be established on anational or even regional basis, and increasingly staff candraw on published codes of practice and standards forconservation management. In other cases, WorldHeritage staff will have to set standards of their own foraspects unique to the site or its situation.

• Assessments should be comprehensive: many natu-ral World Heritage site managers will be ecologists andconservationists, and their instinct will be to look firstand maybe even exclusively at biological values in assess-ing management effectiveness. While these issues arecritically important, in most cases they will not beenough and social, cultural and economic issues shouldalso be considered. Today, shifting societal values haveplaced greater emphasis on the social role of all WorldHeritage sites and all protected areas, many of which arenow expected to play a positive role in poverty alleviationprogrammes for example. Long-term conservation val-ues are also in many instances connected to cultural orsocial values, which can either support or hinder conser-vation. This makes assessment slightly more difficult, ifonly because it requires a wider range of expertise, butalso makes the results more widely applicable.

• Flexibility of responses is important: we are notinsisting on orthodoxy here; the tools and approachesare proposals and suggestions rather than fixed andunmoveable methodologies. We encourage site staff tothink carefully about what information or monitoringsystems are available already and to incorporate themrather than reinventing or repeating work, which willsimply waste time and money (and frustrate the peopleinvolved in existing monitoring systems if their work isseen to be undervalued).

• Promotion and dissemination: assessments will gen-erate a lot of interest and promotion needs to be han-dled with care. Anyone who has been involved will

expect, and should be entitled, to see a copy of both thefinal report and any background documentation.Furthermore, depending on the profile of the site, theremay be wider interest from local, national or even inter-national media, from politicians and other stakeholders.At least some of these may not be particularly sympa-thetic to World Heritage values, for example if WorldHeritage status is stopping development of some partic-ular commercial enterprise. It is therefore worth prepar-ing a promotion plan before releasing the final report,with associated an press release and people ready tospeak to journalists etc. If particular problems have beenhighlighted, it would be a good idea to evolve a strategyon how these might be addressed before setting thembefore the public. At the same time, promotion shouldalso take place internally and in particular it is importantthat staff and others involved in what is often a tediousbusiness of collecting data have a chance to see andunderstand what this has been feeding into.

• The process needs to include the response and fol-low-up to assessment and not just the assessmentitself: finally, but most important of all, assessments thatsimply sit on a shelf in an office are pointless. The assess-ment only makes sense if it is followed by a set ofresponses (if these are shown to be necessary) and a fullyimplemented plan of action for addressing these.Assessments that go on to improve the efficiency andeffectiveness of management are far more likely to besupported and repeated in the future.

Things to considerThere are many additional factors that anyone developingan assessment system needs to include; we identify a fewissues that have become obvious during our work.

• A relatively fast-changing staff in many WorldHeritage sites: none of the nine sites involved in thetesting of the Enhancing our Heritage approach had thesame manager at the end of the seven-year period asthey did when we began, and most had also changedthe people responsible for monitoring and evaluation.Many protected area agencies swap managers everyyear or so. There are good reasons for this, but it tendsto make the development of new systems more difficultbecause project staff are constantly engaging with newpeople and repeating training. As systems become insti-tutionalized this becomes less of a problem, because anew manager will come knowing what to expect interms of monitoring, but this is far from the norm as yet.It makes the provision of detailed monitoring protocolsparticularly important so that if one staff member leavesthere are sufficient detailed instructions to enable some-one else to can carry on monitoring in the same way, sothat data are comparable. We are glad to see that insome test countries the approaches are being adoptedgenerally for World Heritage sites or even for protectedareas, which will make rapid staff turnover less of a problem.

Project to Process: the Future 6

95

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 95

• Difficulties in engaging with local people: monitor-ing staff need to have clear ideas of how to engage withlocal stakeholders and how to follow up after assess-ments. It has proved very difficult to get everyoneinvolved in discussion in many places; for instance, insome situations it has proved hard to get women to themeetings (and perhaps separate meetings may be moreappropriate). More fundamentally, managers need toknow how to respond to issues that local people bringup. A stakeholder workshop (which costs people timeand money to attend) that identifies a lot of problems,which are then ignored, will do little good. Conversely, itmay not always be possible to address many of the com-plaints that arise. There is no magic formula for how toaddress this issue but it does need to be addressed inevery case.

• Adapt the toolkit for your own circumstances: againwe stress, this is not supposed to be a simple recipebook. Experiment!

Project to Process: the Future6

96

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 96

97

Appendices1. Related Tools Shell Foundation – UNESCO/WHC Business Planning Toolkit

ParkPlan: Management Planning Implementation Database

2. Glossary

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 97

Introduction

One of the overall objectives of the Enhancing ourHeritage project was, wherever possible, to developgeneric tools, training materials and guidance for World Heritage managers, to help them managemore effectively and efficiently. Although the devel-opment of the toolkit was the primary objective, theproject was flexible enough to develop other part-nerships and tools for managers in response to spe-cific needs.

The results of the initial assessments found severalcommon themes in terms of gaps in activities thatcould impact the effectiveness of management. Twoareas in particular were identified where additionalguidance materials/tools for managers could bedeveloped in relation to business planning for WorldHeritage sites and monitoring implementation ofmanagement plans.

Shell Foundation – UNESCO/WHC BusinessPlanning Toolkit

Business planning helps World Heritage managers to sys-tematically assess the various management inputs andprocesses that constitute their agency, so as to take the ini-tiative in identifying and correcting weaknesses, and tomake best use of strengths so that management objectivescan be met with greater efficiency.

Sources of World Heritage site finance are frequentlydiverse, often combining government grants with interna-tional aid, trust funds and direct income from resourceusers. But whatever the source, without good businessplanning skills it is unlikely that access to financialresources or use of available resources will be totally effec-tive. A cursory evaluation of a typical site manager’s train-ing background will often reveal a gap in terms of overallbusiness planning capacity. Several of the World Heritagesites taking part in the EoH project identified business andfinancial planning as a weakness in their initial assessment.

There is already a vast amount of advice available on busi-ness planning. But most of this is written for enterprisesaimed solely at making money; in contrast, the primaryobjective of World Heritage sites is to achieve effective in-situ conservation and income generation is instead ameans to that end. In these conditions, the concept ofbusiness planning become less about generating incomeand more about overall effective management of financialresources. Rather than showing increased profits andgrowth margins, the site manager’s business is to achievemaximum effectiveness in attaining the site’s overall objec-tives and conserving the major values. World Heritage sitesare nonetheless ‘big business’ in terms of annual turnoverand employees and assets/infrastructure, most nationalagencies having turnovers of millions of dollars a year.Given that much of this is in the form of state funding,

there is a strong political imperative to demonstrate thatfunds are being used as efficiently as possible.

The need to develop World Heritage/protected area-focused business planning advice was thus seen as animportant addition to the overall aim of the EoH project interms of improving management effectiveness of WorldHeritage sites. The opportunity to link protected area andWorld Heritage expertise with big business presented itselfthrough the memorandum of agreement between Shell andUNESCO and the development of the ‘Shell Foundation –UNESCO/WHC Business Planning Skills’ pilot project.

The objective of the project was to develop a generic busi-ness planning toolkit that will assist World Heritage sitemanagers to build capacity in developing three-year busi-ness plans. Shell Foundation, with support from ShellInternational business consultants, developed a draftBusiness Planning Toolkit specific to the EoH project in2004/5, which aims to provide:• Guidance on completing the main elements of a busi-

ness plan • Development of capacity to realise the plan (finance and

people)• Implementation of activities needed to achieve the

planned goals.

Two pilot training projects were completed with theSeychelles Island Foundation (SIF) and Uganda WildlifeAuthority (UWA) in EoH pilot sites (a third field test wascarried out in a World Heritage site in the Philippines whichwas not part of the EoH project) to transfer business plan-ning skills to the management of the Valle de Mai andAldabra Atoll in the Seychelles and Bwindi ImpenetrableForest National Park in Uganda. Each organizationreceived support in developing a business plan throughtwo in-country training visits and additional mentoringsupport during the project period. Following field testing,the Business Planning Toolkit was updated to fill identifiedgaps and improve the clarity of the language and wasfinalized by a protected area training specialist to ensuremaximum applicability to World Heritage site managers.

98

Appendix 1: Related Tools

Items developed for sale to tourists visiting the two WorldHeritage sites in the Seychelles. The field-testing of the business planning toolkit in the Seychelles focussed on theopportunities presented by mass tourism in the Seychelles.

© S

ue S

tolto

n

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 98

The toolkit is designed in a modular format so that differ-ent World Heritage sites can implement the elements theyneed most urgently (according to time and cost limita-tions). The toolkit is thus built in distinct parts followingthe structure of a standard business plan as shown in thebox below.

Business Planning Toolkit

Section 1: Executive Summary

Section 2: Company Analysis2.1. Company Profile2.2. Vision & Mission2.3. Present Situation2.4. Stakeholder Analysis2.5. SWOT Analysis2.6. Goals & Objectives

Section 3: Market Analysis3.1. Market Definition3.2. PEST Analysis3.3. Customer Profile3.4. Competition3.5. Strategic options

Section 4: Marketing Plan4.1. Marketing Strategy4.2. Product4.3. Pricing

4.4. Place (Distribution)4.5. Promotion4.6. Market Forecasting

Section 5: Operational Plan5.1. Procurement5.2. Contractual Agreements5.3. Fund Raising Activities5.4. HSE activities5.5. Preventative Maintenance

Section 6: HR Plan6.1. Organizational structure6.2. Staff profile6.3. Staff Requirements6.4. Training 6.5. Gap analysis

Section 7: Risk Plan7.1. Risk Identification7.2. Risk Evaluation7.3. Risk Management 7.4. Contingency Planning

Section 8: Financial Plan8.1. Capital Requirements8.2. Budget 8.3. Financial Statements8.5. Evaluation8.6. Funding

Section 9: Action Plan

99


Examples of goals stated in 2005 Business Plan

Improve financial independence from current ratio of self generating income/total income of 0.6, to 0.8 by 2006

Develop detail budgets and quarterly tracking for all sites/operations

Reduce ‘unnecessary costs’, e.g. maintenance and purchasing

Use of new technologies to reduce cost

Improve staff skills

Reduce number of job descriptions (more generic roles)

Achievements reported in early 2006

2005 budget developed and tracked on monthly basis with financial reports provided to Board of Trustees

Maintenance costs reduced by purchase of some new equipment and introduction of regular maintenance sched-ules for generators, air-conditioning systems, outboardengines, etc

Installation of VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal) satellite communication for better more cost effective communications

Three staff undergoing computer training; eight staff completed Intermediate First Aid training

Example of section 2.6 (Goals and objectives) of the SIF Business Plan

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 99

100


Risk Description

Link to Business Objectives

Risk Owner (Focal Point)

Current Risk Responses

Impact/Likelihood Rationale

Actions

Competition from Rwanda for gorilla tourism

Reduced gorilla tourism

Chief Warden

Likelihood is high but impact is medium (cost of 600 million Shs).

• Train tour guides for better service provision and interpretation• Monitor quality of services provided by tour companies and hoteliers in protected area• Improve gorilla surveillance and communication to ensure availability of gorillas for

viewing• Redesign gorilla tracking trails to ease tracking activity• Improve transportation for trackers to convenient starting points• Provide before and after tracking leisure activities to tourists• Motivate efficient tour companies• Improve access (roads) to the protected area

Example of section 7.3, Risk Management, of the draft business plan developed by UWA for Bwindi Impenetrable Forest

The Toolkit is aimed primarily at users with no businessknowledge or experience. All business concepts are intro-duced at a basic level and no previous knowledge of busi-ness planning is required. All the templates andframeworks used in the toolkit are designed to be simpleto use and easily applicable.

ParkPlan: Management PlanningImplementation Database

ParkPlan has been developed to help managers trackimplementation of their primary management document.It enables the management plan to be presented in anelectronic form so that the implementation of manage-ment actions can be tracked over time.

The initial idea of developing the ParkPlan tool was inresponse to a request to the EoH project from SerengetiNational Park in Tanzania. In 2006, when Serengeti staff began the comprehensive review of their GeneralManagement Plan (GMP) they aimed to create a ‘living’document and spent time thinking about the structureand usefulness of the plan. This resulted in the creation ofa more flexible, ring-bound plan where staff memberswere able to add observations, schedules and progressthroughout the life of the plan. But staff at Serengeti wereunsure about how best to monitor the progress of imple-mentation of the plan on a regular basis across all fourmanagement of their programmes.

Working together with Serengeti staff, the EoH projectteam and software developers, devised an electronic toolfor tracking the implementation of the GMP. It wasacknowledged that the static nature of planning docu-ments was a widespread problem experienced by manyprotected area managers and it was decided to develop ageneric tool that could also be used by other sites. Theresult was the database package .

The aim of the ParkPlan tool is to track progress in imple-menting the GMP for a protected area. It concentrates ontracking the completion of the specific actions developedto achieve the plan’s targets and management objectives.The tool has three main purposes:1. To provide detail on the progress of implementing man-

agement plan actions2. To generate reports on the status of these actions3. To facilitate operational planning based on the provi-

sions of the management plan.

ParkPlan is designed to reflect the structure of any man-agement plan. In the case of Serengeti National Park, the GMP is divided into the four park management programme sections – the Ecosystem ManagementProgramme, the Tourism Management Programme, the Community Outreach Programme and the ParkOperations Programme. Each programme has a set ofmanagement objectives and targets. Specific actions havebeen developed to meet each objective and its targets.

Developing ParkPlan at Serengeti National Park, UR of Tanzania.

© S

ue S

tolto

n

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 100

Therefore, ParkPlan focuses on detailing the implementa-tion of the last stage of the tree – the specific actionswhich when completed should achieve the objectives foreach programme. This hierarchal structure is referred to inthe ParkPlan as the ‘Action Tree’ (see Figure A.1).

There are various ways of searching the database and thengenerating reports on the results:• Descriptors: The main way of searching the database is

via descriptors. These are key words (and priorities) thatcan be used for searching the database and groupingactions into management themes. For example, adetailed report on the status of all actions relating to‘Campsites’ or ‘Natural Resource Management’ could be generated. (Descriptors for the Serengeti GeneralManagement Plan were developed through a groupworkshop with Serengeti managers, where each aspectof the management plan was assigned descriptor words,e.g. camping, tourism, poaching etc).

• Hierarchal level: Reports can be generated by search-ing against selected criteria at different levels of the plan(Action Tree). For example, searches can be conductedfor the whole GMP, selected programmes or against spe-cific objectives or targets.

• Status: This enables the progress on actions to be cate-gorized and reported, ranging for example from ‘notcommenced‘ to ‘complete‘.

• Priority: low, medium or high. Prioritizing actions canassist when developing work plans and reporting on theprogress of urgent tasks.

As results are collected over time, more detailed analysesof implementation progress and trends become possible.The flexible searching capabilities of a database allow thestatus of different components of the plan to be assessedand reported. Three main types of reports can be generated:• Detailed reports provide a comprehensive overview of

the progress in implementation of certain aspects of themanagement plan. Information will include the status ofactions, priority, costs and responsibilities

• To Do Reports detail the timeframes, costs and individ-ual staff member or unit responsible for the any group ofactions in the plan.

• Summary Reports provide a brief overview of theprogress in implementing the management plan.

101


Ecological Management Programme

Tourism Management Programme

Community Outreach

Programme

Park operations Programme

Specific Action 1.1.1.1

Objective 1

Target 1.1

Target 1.2

Broad Action 1.1.1

The Action Tree

(GMP Structure)

Objective 2

Broad Action 1.1.2




Figure A.1: The ParkPlan ‘Action Tree’.

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 101

Adaptive management: in this context, incorporatinglearning into management of natural World Heritagesites, specifically the integration of design, managementand monitoring to test assumptions in order to adapt andlearn. In practice, this means that management systems(management plans, work plans, day-to-day responsibili-ties of staff) need to be flexible enough to be changed ifan assessment or other experience shows that currentapproaches could be improved.

Assessment: the measurement or evaluation of anaspect of management.

Ecological integrity: a state of ecosystem developmentthat is characteristic for its geographic location, has a fullrange of native species and supporting processes and isviable, i.e. is likely to persist.

Evaluation: the judgement of the status/condition orperformance of some aspect of management againstpredetermined criteria (usually a set of standards orobjectives); in this case including the objectives for whichthe World Heritage site was established.

Indicators: measurable entities that are used to assessthe status and trend of a range of site values. A givenvalue, objective, or additional information need can havemultiple indicators. A good indicator meets the criteria ofbeing measurable, precise, consistent and sensitive.

IUCN-WCPA Management effectiveness evaluationframework: a system for designing protected area man-agement effectiveness evaluations based around six ele-ments - context, planning, inputs, processes, outputs andoutcomes. It is not a methodology, but a guide to devel-oping assessment systems.

List of World Heritage in Danger: the List of WorldHeritage in Danger is designed to inform the interna-tional community of conditions which threaten the verycharacteristics for which a property was inscribed on theWorld Heritage List, and to encourage corrective action.A decision to include or remove a site from the DangerList is made by the World Heritage Committee.

Management effectiveness evaluation: is the assess-ment of how well a site is being managed – primarily theextent to which it is protecting values and achievinggoals and objectives.

Monitoring: collecting information on indicators repeat-edly over time to discover trends in the status of the World Heritage site and the activities and processes ofmanagement.

Natural World Heritage site: a natural area that hasbeen recognized by the World Heritage Committee asbeing of outstanding universal value and thus inscribedon the World Heritage List. There are currently almost200 natural World Heritage sites plus a few that are des-ignated as ’mixed‘ sites having both natural and culturalvalues.

Objectives: specific statements detailing the desiredaccomplishments or outcomes of a particular set of activ-ities, i.e. management of a World Heritage site. There willtypically be multiple objectives.

Outstanding Universal Value: a specific term used bythe World Heritage Convention to describe culturaland/or natural significance which is so exceptional as totranscend national boundaries and to be of commonimportance for present and future generations of allhumanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the internationalcommunity as a whole. Outstanding Universal Value(OUV) is central to the whole World Heritage approachbut often difficult to define or describe.

Periodic reporting: every six years, States Parties areinvited to submit to the World Heritage Committee aperiodic report on the application of the World HeritageConvention, including the state of conservation of theWorld Heritage properties located on its territories. Theseare usually summarized in reports from specific regions.

Reactive monitoring: reactive monitoring is the report-ing by the World Heritage Centre, other sectors ofUNESCO and the Advisory Bodies to the Committee onthe state of conservation of specific World Heritage prop-erties that are under threat.

Tool: as used here, an instrument (e.g. questionnaire,scorecard, monitoring methodology etc.) that aids inundertaking an assessment.

102

Appendix 2: Glossary

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 102

103

Acknowledgements

The Enhancing our Heritage project operated in three continents between 2000 and 2007 and hasinvolved many hundreds of people in workshops, conduct of assessments in the pilot sites and in otheractivities. It is impossible to acknowledge all of those people individually so we start these acknowl-edgements with a collective Thank-you to all these people – the project depended absolutely on yourparticipation.

There are also many people who have made a sustained contribution to the project over this periodto whom we owe particular thanks for their contribution. Firstly, to the United Nations Foundation,and especially Seema Paul, who believed in the value of this project and provided the funds for it tobecome a reality. The Foundation is also thanked for their willingness to extend the timeframe of theproject so that we could work at a pace that matched the needs of the pilot sites. We have learntthrough this process that such flexibility on the part of donors is a key ingredient of success.

Secondly, we would like to recognize the contribution made by Dr Natarajan Ishwaran from UNESCOwho was instrumental in the conception of the project and who guided it through the first few yearsof implementation. The many other staff who contributed to the management of the project from theUNESCO World Heritage Centre are also thanked, in particular, Marc Patry and Claire Servoz.

Thirdly, we would like to recognize the contribution of the IUCN Programme of Protected Areas, theIUCN Regional Offices in East Africa, South Asia and Central and South America and the members ofthe IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). The project has grown out of the work ofIUCN and WCPA on management effectiveness evaluation. In addition IUCN has a key role as an advi-sor to the World Heritage Convention for natural heritage and the project was designed to assist inthis role.

The regional, agency and site partners in the project were the engine house for the project in the field.These people, who made the project happen at the pilot sites and who also contributed to the globallearning and development of the project over time are here listed by region and site. Thank you all for your commitment and energy. Of course the work at the sites involved many more people, too numerous to thank here by name but without whose input the project could not have achieved itsresults – Thank you to all.

AfricaIUCN-East Africa Regional Office: Sue Wells, Geoffrey Howard, Humphrey Kisioh, Maurice Nyaligu.Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles: Lindsay Chong-Seng, Katie Beaver, Ronny Renaud; Frauke Fleischer-Dogley.Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda: Moses Mapesa, Ghad Mugiri, Kule Asa Musinguzi,Institute for Tropical Forest Conservation.Serengeti National Park, Tanzania: Justin Hando, Ephraim Mwangomo, Joseph Kessy, Tony Sinclair,Martin Loibooki, James Wakibara, Rosena Kibasa, Grant Hopcraft.

...

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 103

104

South AsiaWildlife Institute of India and associated consultants: S. Singsit, P.R. Sinha, B.C. Choudhary, AshokVerma, Ashish David, Seema Bhatt, Manoj Misra.Chitwan National Park, Nepal: Tirtha Maskey, Narayan Poudel, Shyam Bajimaya, Jhamak Karki, MeghPandey, Tej Thapa.Kaziranga National Park, India: M.C. Malakar, B.S. Bonal, N.K. Vasu, Gautam Narayan, RabindraSharma.Keoladeo National Park, India: R.N. Mehrotra, P.S. Somashekar, Sunayan Sharma, Ritu Singh.

Latin AmericaIUCN-South America and IUCN-Meso America offices: Marina Cracco, Eduardo Guerrero, Joerg Elbers,Alberto Salas.Canaima National Park, Venezuela: Diego Diaz Martin, Isabel Novo, Marco Morales, Cesar Cario,Mildred Real, Anibal Inveron, Jorge Rangel, the indigenous Pemón communities and the staff of CVG-EDELCA electrical utilities company. Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve, Honduras: Victor Archaga, Conrado Gonzalez, Ivonne Oviedo, MirnaRamos, Franklin Castañeda, Lorenzo Olivas, Nereyda Estrada, Clifford Smith, Arnulfo Messen, WilfredoDavid.Sangay National Park, Ecuador: Jorge Rivas, Isidro Gutierrez, Darwin Rivadeneira, Miguel Acuña,Miguel Vazquez, Fernando Bajaña, Didier Sanchez, Montserrat Albán, Vicente Álvarez, Luis Suárez,Roberto Ulloa.

...

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 104

Published within the World Heritage Papers Series

0

World Heritage 2papers Investing in World Heritage: Past Achievements, Future Ambitions(In English) December 2002

World Heritage manualsManaging Tourism at World Heritage Sites: a Practical Manual for World Heritage Site ManagersGestión del turismo en sitios del Patrimonio Mundial: Manual práctico para administradores de sitios del Patrimonio Mundial (In English) November 2002; (In Spanish) May 2005

World Heritage 3reportsPeriodic Report AfricaRapport périodique pour l’Afrique(In English and French) April 2003

World Heritage 4papersProceedings of the World Heritage Marine Biodiversity Workshop, Hanoi, Viet Nam February 25–March 1, 2002(In English) May 2003

World Heritage 5papers Identification and Documentation of Modern Heritage(In English with two papers in French) June 2003

World Heritage 6papers World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992-2002(In English) July 2004

World Heritage 7papersCultural Landscapes: the Challenges of Conservation Proceedings from the Ferrara workshop, November 2002(In English with conclusions and recommendations in French) August 2004

World Heritage 8papersMobilizing Young People for World HeritageProceedings from the Treviso workshop, November 2002Mobiliser les jeunes pour le patrimoine mondialRapport de l’atelier de Trévise, novembre 2002(In English and French) September 2003

World Heritage 9papersPartnerships for World Heritage Cities - Culture as a Vector for Sustainable Urban DevelopmentProceedings from the Urbino workshop, November 2002(In English and French) August 2004

World Heritage papersMonitoring World HeritageProceedings from the Vicenza workshop, November 2002(In English) September 2004

World Heritage reportsPeriodic Report and Regional Programme - Arab States 2000-2003Rapports périodiques et programme régional - Etats Arabes 2000-2003(In English and French) June 2004

World Heritage

The State of World Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region 2003L’état du patrimoine mondial dans la région Asie-Pacifique 2003(In English) October 2004; (In French) July 20052reports

World Heritage

Linking Universal and Local Values: Managing a Sustainable Future for World HeritageL’union des valeurs universelles et locales : La gestion d’un avenir durable pour le patrimoine mondial(In English with the introduction, four papers and the conclusions and recommendations in French) October 20043papers

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 105

World Heritage

Caribbean Wooden Treasures Proceedings of the Thematic Expert Meeting on Wooden Urban Heritage in the Caribbean Region4–7 February 2003, Georgetown - Guyana (In English) October 2005

5papers

World Heritage

World Heritage at the Vth IUCN World Parks CongressDurban (South Africa), 8–17 September 2003 (In English) December 20056reports

World Heritage

Promouvoir et préserver le patrimoine congolaisLier diversité biologique et culturellePromoting and Preserving Congolese HeritageLinking biological and cultural diversity(In French and English) December 2005

7papers

World Heritage

Periodic Report 2004 – Latin America and the CaribbeanRapport périodique 2004 – Amérique Latine et les CaraïbesInforme Periodico 2004 – América Latina y el Caribe(In English, French and Spanish) March 2006

8papers

World Heritage

Fortificaciones Americanas y la Convención del Patrimonio MundialAmerican Fortifications and the World Heritage Convention(In Spanish with the foreword, editorial, programme, opening ceremony and seven papers in English) December 2006

9papers

World Heritage

Periodic Report and Action Plan – Europe 2005-2006Rapport périodique et plan d’action – Europe 2005-2006(In English and French) January 200720reports

World Heritage

Archéologie de la Caraïbe et Convention du patrimoine mondialCaribbean Archaeology and World Heritage ConventionArqueología del Caribe y Convención del Patrimonio Mundial(In French, English and Spanish) July 2005

4papers

World Heritage

World Heritage ForestsLeveraging Conservation at the Landscape Level(In English) May 20072reports

World Heritage

Climate Change and World HeritageReport on predicting and managing the impacts of climate change on World Heritage and Strategy to assist States Parties to implement appropriate management responsesChangement climatique et patrimoine mondialRapport sur la prévision et la gestion des effets du changement climatique sur le patrimoine mondial et Stratégie pour aider les États parties à mettre en œuvre des réactions de gestion adaptées(In English and French) May 2007

22reports

PM_EOH-23 22/05/08 13:28 Page 106

For more information contact:UNESCO World Heritage Centre

7, place de Fontenoy75352 Paris 07 SP FranceTel : 33 (0)1 45 68 15 71Fax : 33 (0)1 45 68 55 70E-mail : [email protected]://whc.unesco.org

23

Enha

ncin

g ou

r H

erit

age

Tool

kit

Des

ign

by R

ecto

Vers

o

World Heritage papers23World Heritage papers

Wo

rld

Heri

tag

epa

pers


PM_EOH_23_cover 22/05/08 13:24 Page 1

Date post:	03-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times