~MPA Scorecard ~ Assessing and Reporting

on MPA Management Effectiveness

Marco V. Cerezo (FUNDAECO)

Barbara Reveles (SEMARNAT)

Wil Mehia (TIDE)

Marea E. Hatziolos (World Bank)

Objectives

To provide MPA managers with a tool:

to assess progress on management effectiveness against a baseline

capture trendsidentify gaps

to report on it in a standardized way, consistent with the WSSD target for effective, representative MPAs

to comply with performance reporting requirements, e.g., of WB and GEF

Reporting at Global Level

Use of results:• to report on progress of

investments in Protected Area management to GEF and its implementing agencies – Tool is now being mainstreamed into

terrestrial PA projects– Complement this with tool for use by

MPA managers to get an overall view of status of PA management

• to develop index of environmental sustainability at national level:

Total area under protection X = Integrity of management effectiveness ecosystems/

sustainability of goods &

services  

WCPA Framework

• Context Where are we now?

• Planning Where do we want to be?

• Inputs What do we need?

• Process How do we go about it?

• Outputs What were the results?

• Outcomes What did we achieve?

Piloting the Scorecard

• Scorecard was applied in 4 MPAs

• Two of these located in the Gulf of Honduras (Trinational Alliance: TRIGOH)– One in Guatemala (Sarstun)– One in Belize (Port Honduras)

• Another in Honduras– Cayos Cochinos

• Another in Mexico– Banco Chinchorro

Results

• In Guatemala, scorecard was applied to Rio Sarstun and two terrestrial PA s in a participatory exercise w/staff

• Low score was obtained– previously a paper park– new management plan is under

preparation with field presence

• Exercise very positive– Scorecard easily applied– Uses common sense– Requires readily available

information– Does not require extensive

preparation or time– Leads to constructive discussion

More than just a

Scorecard…• Answers are the result of in- depth

discussion with staff and synthesize relevant information

• Questions address a range of issues:– Legal status and regulations– Law enforcement– Boundary demarcation– Integration into ICM plans– Resource inventory– Management Plans/ Objectives– Research– Staff, budget and resource mgt– Equipment and training– Education and communication– Indigenous People and local

community participation– Tourism, visitor facilities and fees– Economic benefits

Result of PilotsStrong Points• Easy to use/teambuilding• Indicates trends/shows gaps• Can help in reallocating effort• Potential to standardize

reporting throughout regionWeaknesses • Emphasis on process and

inputs rather than outputs and outcomes

• Need to reconcile with other evaluation tools

• Adequacy of tool depends on maturity and nature of MPA

• Implications for future donor support may influence reporting

Next Steps

• How to use the results to improve management

• How to improve the scorecard– Finer grained to more fully

capture extent of effort and progress achieved?

– More tailored to reflect differences in MPA type and age?

• How to reconcile with other tools

• Work in progress: www.MPAscorecard.net