score card to assess progress in achieving management...

Score Card to Assess Progress inAchieving Management Effectiveness Goals

for Marine Protected Areas

Prepared for the World BankRevised version – July 2004

Adapted* byFrancis Staub, AJH Environmetal Services

Marea E. Hatziolos, World Bank

TheWorldBank

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals

2

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the World Bank – WWF Alliance for terrestrial Protected Areasfor authorizing the use and adaptation of the tool it developed in the context of “Reportingprogress at protected area sites”.

The authors are especially grateful to Leah Bunce of US NOAA and to the many peoplewho commented on an earlier draft and provided useful feedback in development of thetool.

Cover photograph credits (clockwise from left to right): Sea Lion in Galapagos National Park, Ecuador (DavidBonnardeaux/World Bank ENV); Fisherman throwing net in Orango National Park, Guinea-Bissau (PeterKristensen/World Bank LAC); Coral reef in the Pacific (Nancy Sefton/The Nature Conservancy). Aquaculturefishermen pulling in nets in Nha Trang Bay Marine Protected Area, Vietnam (Hon Mun Marine ProtectedArea Pilot Project).

Contact information:

Marea E. HatziolosThe World Bank

Senior Coastal and Marine SpecialistEnvironment DepartmentEmail: [email protected]

Francis Staub

AJH Environmental ServicesEmail: [email protected]

3


Purpose

other stakeholders, it can be a useful teambuilding exercise.

This is a revised version from the publicationreleased in August 2003. The major changesconcern the sections on outputs and outcomes.Also, this publication is now available in Span-ish and French.

The purpose of the Score Card is to help ma-rine protected area managers and local stake-holders determine their progress along themanagement continuum. It is a short, straight-forward self-assessment tool to help managersidentify where they are succeeding and wherethey need to address gaps. Because it is in-tended to be completed by the MPA staff and

5


Background

The World Summit on Sustainable Develop-ment, which concluded in September 2002,adopted a series of targets on priority environ-mental and natural resource themes to beachieved through partnerships between devel-oped and developing country members. Oneof these was for the establishment of represen-tative networks of marine protected areas(MPAs) by 2012. Implicit in this target is theeffective management of MPAs so that theyachieve their conservation objectives and con-tribute to the larger scale ecosystem approachfor managing coastal and marine resources, alsoembraced by the WSSD.

The development of a Score Card (SC) to beused by Marine Protected Area managers toassess their progress and to report on this in astandardized way is consistent with the WSSD

target and with the reporting needs of institu-tions like the Word Bank. The Score Card willallow evaluating and reporting on the perfor-mance of Bank investments in marine protectedareas to its shareholders and other partners,such as the GEF. It also may serve a useful toolto other practitioners and institutions involvedin MPA management and is, therefore, meantto be adapted based on site and regional needs.For example, the Meso-America Barrier ReefSystem Project in coordination with PROARCAdeveloped a Management Effectiveness proto-col based on this Score Card, methodologiesof PROARCA and on the WCPA-Marine/WWFManagement effectiveness Guidelines. By pull-ing from these various resources, the organi-zations developed a protocol tailored to theirneeds.


6

7


Presentation of the Score Card (SC)

management effectiveness of MPAs. It has beenbuilt around the application of the WCPAFramework. Appendix II of the Frameworkdocument has provided its basic structure (theWCPA framework aims both to provide someoverall guidance in the development of assess-

The Score Card has been adapted from a tooldeveloped by the World Bank – WWF Alliancefor terrestrial Protected Areas (Stolton S. et Al.2003) and from other tools (Hocking M. et Al.2000 ; Mangubhai S. 2003). It is a simple site–level tracking tool to facilitate reporting on

TABLE 1Summary of the WCPA Framework

Elements of Criteria that Focus ofevaluation Explanation are assessed evaluation

Context Where are we now? Significance StatusAssessment of importance, Threats threats and policy environment Vulnerability

National context

Planning Where do we want to be? Protected area legislation AppropriatenessAssessment of protected area and policydesign and planning Protected area system design

Reserve designManagement planning

Inputs What do we need? Resourcing of agency ResourcesAssessment of resources Resourcing of site needed to carry out management Partners

Process How do we go about it? Suitability of EfficiencyAssessment of the way in which management processes appropriateness management is conducted

Output What were the results? Results of management EffectivenessAssessment of the implementation actionsof management programmes and Services and productsactions; delivery of products andservices

Outcome What did we achieve? Impacts: effects of EffectivenessAssessment of the outcomes and management in relation appropriatenessthe extent to which they achieved to objectivesobjectives

Source: Hockings et al. (2000)


8

1 For a copy of the WPCA Framework or a more detailed summary please visit the WCPA web–site at:

www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa

ment systems and to encourage standards forassessment and reporting).

The WCPA Framework is based on the ideathat good protected area management followsa process that has six distinct stages, or ele-ments:

1. context2. planning3. inputs4. processes5. outputs6. outcomes

Table 1 contains a very brief summary of theelements of the WCPA Framework and the cri-teria that can be assessed. The Score Card hasbeen designed to fulfil the elements of evalua-tion included in the Framework.

The MPA Score Card is also available (in En-glish, French and Spanish) online at the fol-

lowing web site: www.mpascorecard.net. Re-sults may also be made available online if MPAmanagers are willing to share them.

Level of detail in the assessment

Hockings et al. 2000 identified 3 possible lev-els of evaluation, each requiring differentamounts of data collection and financial in-put. The Score card presented here is a level 1assessment (see figure 2).

This type of assessment (level 1) requires littleor no additional data collection and focuses onthe context of the MPA along with the appro-priateness of planning, inputs and processes ofmanagement. It relies largely on available datethrough literature searches and informed opin-ions of site managers and/or independent as-sessors, takes a short period of time and costslittle. Issues are broadly covered, but depth ofanalysis is generally low.

FIGURE 2Three levels of assessment

Source: Hockings et al. (2000).

▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Context Planning Inputs Process Outputs Outcomes

9


This approach is useful for prioritization of is-sues and improving the management process,but tells you little about the achievement ofmanagement objectives. Evaluating outcomesand achievement of management objectives willrequire an independent evaluation or othermore in depth assessment tool (such as theWCPA-Marine/WWF Management Effective-ness Guidelines available at http://effectivempa.noaa.gov).

Limitations and disclaimer

The Score Card is aimed at helping managersreport progress on management effectivenessfrom a given baseline. It should not replacemore thorough methods of assessment for thepurposes of adaptive management (In annex1, you will find a list of useful references toaddress the latter.) The Scorecard tool has beenadapted / developed to provide a quick over-view of the initial state of management effortsand subsequent progress, over a period of years,

in improving the effectiveness of managementin a given marine protected area. TheScorecard is designed to be filled in by themanager or other relevant site staff.

The tool does not allow a detailed evaluationof outcomes, but rather serves to provide aquick overview of the status of managementsteps identified in the WCPA Protected AreaManagement Framework, up to and includingoutputs.

The whole concept of “scoring” progress isfraught with difficulties and possibilities fordistortion. The current system assumes, forexample, that all the questions cover issues ofequal weight, whereas this is not necessarilythe case. Accuracy might be improved byweighting the various scores, although thiswould provide additional challenges in decid-ing differing weightings. In the current ver-sion a simple scoring system is maintained, butthe limitations of this approach should be rec-ognized.


10

11


Guidance notes for using the Score Card

The MPA Score Card has many uses as an ori-entation tool to help managers of new protectedareas scope out issues to be addressed in es-tablishing an effective MPA, or as a trackingtool to provide managers with a sense of “wherethey are” along the management continuum.It also serves as a user-friendly reporting toolon MPA status based on information largelyalready collected without any additional fieldlevel research.

The Score Card should be completed by ma-rine protected area staff and, ideally, localstakeholders to validate the scoring. It is de-signed to be completed within a relatively shortperiod, such as during a staff meeting or otherroutine meeting, by referencing available re-ports or datasets.

Description of forms

Two forms need to be completed:

• DatasheetThe datasheet provides key information onthe site, its characteristics and managementobjectives.

• Assessment FormThe assessment form includes distinct sec-tions, all of which should be completed.

o Questions and scoresThe main part of the assessment formis a series of questions grouped by man-

agement stage or element (i.e. context,planning, inputs, processes, outputs,outcomes). Each question should nor-mally be ranked between 0 (low) and3 (high) based on level of performance.A series of answers is provided for eachquestion to help assessors determinethe appropriate ranking.

Questions that are not relevant to aparticular marine protected areashould be omitted, with a reason givenin the comments section.

This is, inevitably, an approximate pro-cess and there will be situations inwhich none of the four alternative an-swers appears to fit conditions in theprotected area very precisely. We sug-gest that users choose the answer thatis nearest and use the comments sec-tion to elaborate.

o CommentsThe comments box allows qualitativejudgements to be justified by explain-ing why they were made (this couldrange from personal opinion, a refer-ence document, monitoring results orexternal studies and assessments – thepoint being to give anyone reading thereport an idea of why the assessmentwas made).

In this section we also suggest that re-spondents add any useful information


12

that should be shared with other MPAmanagers (for example good practicesor successful activities).

Final Score

Users will have a score for each of the six ele-ments of evaluation and a final score after com-pleting the assessment form. If some questionsare not scored (e.g., not relevant), the maxi-mum score should be changed to an adjustedscore (maximum possible score minus pointsfor question that are not applicable). Your fi-nal score will be a percentage of your scoreover the adjusted maximum score.

13


1. Data sheetName of marine protected area:Location of marine protected area (country and,

if possible, map reference):Date MPA was established: Agreed: Gazetted:Ownership details (i.e. owner, tenure rights etc):Management Authority:Contact information and web site (if any):Size of marine protected area (ha):Percent of MPA that is terrestrial (%):Number of staff: Permanent: Temporary: Volunteers:Annual budget:Designations (IUCN category, World Heritage, Ramsar, etc):Reasons for designation:The MPA is part of a larger management zoning plan: ❑ Yes ❑ NoBrief details of World Bank funded project or projects in MPA:Brief Description of the primary habitats represented in the MPA

(reef, seagrass, mangrove, lagoon, estuary…):Habitat 1:Habitat 2:

Two primary marine protected area objectives:Objective 1:Objective 2:

Two most important threats to the MPA (and reasons why):Threat 1:Threat 2:

Top two critical management activities:Activity 1:Activity 2:

Top 4 stakeholder groups:Stakeholder group 1:Stakeholder group 2:Stakeholder group 3:Stakeholder group 4:

Resources conditions: ❑ poor ❑ average ❑ good

Date assessment was carried out:

Name/s of assessor:

Role (position) :

Contact information:

Date(s) of previous score card assessment(s):


14

A. C

onte

xt: W

here

are

we

now

? As

sess

men

t of i

mpo

rtant

thre

ats

and

the

polic

y en

viro

nmen

t

1. L

egal

sta

tus

– Do

es th

e m

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

hav

e le

gal s

tatu

s?Yo

urCo

mm

ents

No

te: s

ee fo

urth

opt

ion

for p

rivat

e re

serv

esSc

ore

The

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea is

not

gaz

ette

d0

The

gove

rnm

ent h

as a

gree

d th

at th

e m

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

sho

uld

be g

azet

ted

but t

he p

roce

ss h

as n

ot y

et b

egun

1

The

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea is

in th

e pr

oces

s of

bei

ng g

azet

ted

but

the

proc

ess

is s

till i

ncom

plet

e2

The

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea h

as b

een

lega

lly g

azet

ted

(or i

n th

e ca

seof

priv

ate

rese

rves

is o

wne

d by

a tr

ust o

r sim

ilar)

3

Addi

tiona

l Poi

nt

a

.Th

e M

PA h

as re

ceiv

ed n

atio

nal a

nd/o

r int

erna

tiona

l rec

ogni

tion

for i

ts im

porta

nce

(in th

e co

mm

ents

col

umn,

des

crib

e th

ere

cogn

ition

in d

etai

l)+1

2. M

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

regu

latio

ns –

Are

uns

usta

inab

le h

uman

Your

Com

men

ts

activ

ities

(e.g

. poa

chin

g) c

ontro

lled?

Scor

e

Ther

e ar

e no

mec

hani

sms

for c

ontro

lling

uns

usta

inab

le h

uman

activ

ities

in th

e m

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

0

Mec

hani

sms

for c

ontro

lling

uns

usta

inab

le h

uman

act

iviti

es in

the

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea e

xist

but

ther

e ar

e m

ajor

pro

blem

s in

impl

emen

ting

them

effe

ctiv

ely

1

Mec

hani

sms

for c

ontro

lling

uns

usta

inab

le h

uman

act

iviti

es in

the

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea e

xist

but

ther

e ar

e so

me

prob

lem

s in

effe

ctiv

ely

impl

emen

ting

them

2

Mec

hani

sms

for c

ontro

lling

uns

usta

inab

le h

uman

act

iviti

es in

the

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea e

xist

and

are

bei

ng e

ffect

ivel

y im

plem

ente

d3

15


3. L

aw e

nfor

cem

ent –

Can

sta

ff su

ffici

ently

enf

orce

mar

ine

Your

Com

men

ts

pro

tect

ed a

rea

rule

s?Sc

ore

The

staf

f hav

e no

effe

ctiv

e ca

paci

ty/re

sour

ces

to e

nfor

ce m

arin

epr

otec

ted

area

legi

slat

ion

and

regu

latio

ns0

Ther

e ar

e m

ajor

def

icie

ncie

s in

sta

ff ca

paci

ty/re

sour

ces

to e

nfor

cem

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

legi

slat

ion

and

regu

latio

ns (e

.g. l

ack

of s

kills

no p

atro

l bud

get)

1

The

staf

f hav

e ac

cept

able

cap

acity

/reso

urce

s to

enf

orce

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea le

gisl

atio

n an

d re

gula

tions

but

som

e de

ficie

ncie

s re

mai

n2

The

staf

f hav

e ex

celle

nt c

apac

ity/re

sour

ces

to e

nfor

ce m

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

legi

slat

ion

and

regu

latio

ns3

Addi

tiona

l Poi

nts

a

.Th

ere

are

addi

tiona

l sou

rces

of c

ontro

l (e.

g., v

olun

teer

s, n

atio

nal

serv

ices

, loc

al c

omm

uniti

es)

+1

b

. Inf

ract

ions

are

regu

larly

pro

secu

ted

and

fines

levi

ed+1

4. M

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

bou

ndar

y de

mar

catio

n –

Are

the

Your

Com

men

ts

bou

ndar

ies

know

n an

d de

mar

cate

d?Sc

ore

The

boun

darie

s of

the

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea a

re n

ot k

now

n by

the

man

agem

ent a

utho

rity

or o

ther

sta

keho

lder

s0

The

boun

dary

of t

he m

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

is k

now

n by

aut

horit

y bu

tis

not

kno

wn

by o

ther

sta

keho

lder

s1

The

boun

dary

of t

he m

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

is k

now

n by

bot

h th

em

anag

emen

t aut

horit

y an

d ot

her b

ut is

not

app

ropr

iate

ly d

emar

cate

d2

The

boun

dary

of t

he m

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

is k

now

n by

the

man

agem

ent a

utho

rity

and

stak

ehol

ders

and

is a

ppro

pria

tely

dem

arca

ted

3


16

5. In

tegr

atio

n of

the

MPA

in a

larg

er c

oast

al m

anag

emen

t pla

n –

Your

Com

men

ts

Is th

e M

PA p

art o

f a la

rger

coa

stal

man

agem

ent p

lan?

Scor

e

Ther

e is

no

disc

ussi

on a

bout

the

inte

grat

ion

of th

e M

PA in

a la

rger

coas

tal m

anag

emen

t pla

n0

Ther

e is

som

e di

scus

sion

s ab

out t

he in

tegr

atio

n of

the

MPA

into

coas

tal m

anag

emen

t pla

n bu

t the

pro

cess

has

not

yet

beg

un1

The

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea is

in th

e pr

oces

s of

bei

ng in

tegr

ated

into

a la

rger

coa

stal

man

agem

ent p

lan

but t

he p

roce

ss is

stil

l inc

ompl

ete

2

The

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea is

par

t of a

larg

er c

oast

al m

anag

emen

t pla

n3

Addi

tiona

l Poi

nts

a

.Th

e M

PA is

par

t of a

net

wor

k of

MPA

s w

hich

col

lect

ivel

y su

stai

nla

rger

mar

ine

ecos

yste

m fu

nctio

ns+1

b

. The

MPA

is p

art o

f a n

etw

ork

of M

PAs

whi

ch c

olle

ctiv

ely

repr

esen

tth

e ra

nge

of b

io-g

eogr

aphi

c va

riatio

n in

a m

arin

e ec

o-re

gion

+1

6. R

esou

rce

inve

ntor

y –

Is th

ere

enou

gh in

form

atio

n to

Your

Com

men

ts

man

age

the

area

?Sc

ore

Ther

e is

littl

e or

no

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e on

the

biop

hysi

cal,

soci

o-cu

ltura

l and

eco

nom

ic c

ondi

tions

ass

ocia

ted

with

the

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea0

Info

rmat

ion

on th

e bi

ophy

sica

l, so

cio-

cultu

ral a

nd e

cono

mic

cond

ition

s as

soci

ated

with

the

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea is

not

suffi

cien

t to

supp

ort p

lann

ing

and

deci

sion

mak

ing

1

Info

rmat

ion

on th

e bi

ophy

sica

l, so

cio-

cultu

ral a

nd e

cono

mic

cond

ition

s as

soci

ated

with

the

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea is

suf

ficie

nt fo

rke

y ar

eas

of p

lann

ing/

deci

sion

mak

ing

but t

he n

eces

sary

sur

vey

wor

k is

not

bei

ng m

aint

aine

d2

Info

rmat

ion

on th

e bi

ophy

sica

l, so

cio-

cultu

ral a

nd e

cono

mic

cond

ition

s as

soci

ated

with

the

MPA

is s

uffic

ient

for k

ey a

reas

of

plan

ning

and

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g3

17


7. S

take

hold

er a

war

enes

s an

d co

ncer

n –

Are

stak

ehol

ders

aw

are

Your

Com

men

ts (l

ist th

e stak

ehol

ders

invo

lved)

and

conc

erne

d ab

out m

arin

e re

sour

ce c

ondi

tions

and

thre

ats?

Scor

e

Less

than

25%

of s

take

hold

ers

are

awar

e or

con

cern

ed a

bout

the

mar

ine

reso

urce

con

ditio

ns, a

nd th

reat

s an

d m

anag

emen

t effo

rts0

Appr

oxim

atel

y 25

% -

50%

of s

take

hold

ers

are

awar

e or

con

cern

edab

out t

he m

arin

e re

sour

ce c

ondi

tions

and

thre

ats

1

Appr

oxim

atel

y 50

%-7

5% o

f sta

keho

lder

s ar

e aw

are

or c

once

rned

abou

t the

mar

ine

reso

urce

con

ditio

ns a

nd th

reat

s2

Over

75%

of s

take

hold

ers

are

awar

e or

con

cern

ed a

bout

the

mar

ine

reso

urce

con

ditio

ns a

nd th

reat

s3

TOTA

L fo

r Con

text

(A):

26 o

r adj

uste

d sc

ore

B. P

lann

ing

– W

here

do

we

wan

t to

be?

Asse

ssm

ent o

f mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea d

esig

n an

d pl

anni

ng

8. M

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

obj

ectiv

es –

Hav

e ob

ject

ives

Your

Com

men

ts

bee

n ag

reed

?Sc

ore

No fi

rm o

bjec

tives

hav

e be

en a

gree

d fo

r the

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea0

The

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea h

as a

gree

d ob

ject

ives

1

The

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea h

as a

gree

d ob

ject

ives

but

thes

e ar

e on

lypa

rtial

ly im

plem

ente

d2

The

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea h

as a

gree

d ob

ject

ives

and

is m

anag

ed to

mee

t the

se o

bjec

tives

3

9. M

anag

emen

t pla

n –

Is th

ere

a m

anag

emen

t pla

n an

d is

itYo

urCo

mm

ents

b

eing

impl

emen

ted?

Scor

e

Ther

e is

no

man

agem

ent p

lan

for t

he m

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

0

A m

anag

emen

t pla

n is

bei

ng p

repa

red

or h

as b

een

prep

ared

but

isno

t bei

ng im

plem

ente

d1

An a

ppro

ved

man

agem

ent p

lan

exis

ts b

ut it

is o

nly

bein

g pa

rtial

lyim

plem

ente

d2


18

An a

ppro

ved

man

agem

ent p

lan

exis

ts a

nd is

bei

ng im

plem

ente

d3

Addi

tiona

l Poi

nts

for P

lann

ing

a

. The

re is

als

o a

long

term

mas

ter p

lan

(at l

east

5 y

ears

)+1

b

. The

pla

nnin

g pr

oces

s al

low

s ad

equa

te o

ppor

tuni

ty fo

r key

sta

keho

lder

s to

influ

ence

the

man

agem

ent p

lan

+1

c

. Sta

keho

lder

par

ticip

atio

n in

clud

es re

pres

enta

tion

from

the

var

ious

eth

nic,

relig

ious

and

use

r gro

ups

as w

ell a

s re

pres

enta

tion

fro

m b

oth

gend

ers

+1

d

. The

soc

ioec

onom

ic im

pact

s of

dec

isio

ns a

re c

onsi

dere

d in

the

pla

nnin

g pr

oces

s+1

e

. The

loca

l cul

ture

, inc

ludi

ng tr

aditi

onal

pra

ctic

es, s

ocia

l sys

tem

s,

c

ultu

ral f

eatu

res,

his

toric

site

s an

d m

onum

ents

, is

cons

ider

ed

i

n th

e pl

anni

ng p

roce

ss+1

f.

The

re is

an

esta

blis

hed

sche

dule

and

pro

cess

for p

erio

dic

revi

ew

a

nd u

pdat

ing

of th

e m

anag

emen

t pla

n+1

g

. The

resu

lts o

f mon

itorin

g, re

sear

ch a

nd e

valu

atio

n ar

e

r

outin

ely

inco

rpor

ated

into

pla

nnin

g+1

h

. Man

agem

ent p

lan

is ti

ed to

the

deve

lopm

ent a

nd e

nfor

cem

ent

of r

egul

atio

ns+1

TOTA

L fo

r Pla

nnin

g (B

):14

or a

djus

ted

scor

e

C. In

puts

– W

hat d

o w

e ne

ed?

Asse

ssm

ent o

f res

ourc

es n

eede

d to

car

r y o

ut m

anag

emen

t

10. R

esea

rch

– Is

ther

e a

prog

ram

of m

anag

emen

t-orie

nted

sur

vey

Your

Com

men

ts

an

d re

sear

ch w

ork?

Scor

e

Ther

e is

no

surv

ey o

r res

earc

h w

ork

taki

ng p

lace

in th

e m

arin

epr

otec

ted

area

0

Ther

e is

som

e ad

hoc

sur

vey

and

rese

arch

wor

k1

Ther

e is

con

side

rabl

e su

rvey

and

rese

arch

wor

k bu

t it i

s no

t dire

cted

tow

ards

the

need

s of

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea m

anag

emen

t2

19


Ther

e is

a c

ompr

ehen

sive

, int

egra

ted

prog

ram

of s

urve

y an

d re

sear

chw

ork

whi

ch is

rele

vant

to m

anag

emen

t nee

ds3

Addi

tiona

l Poi

nt

a

. Car

ryin

g ca

paci

ty s

tudi

es h

ave

been

con

duct

ed to

det

erm

ine

sus

tain

able

use

leve

ls+1

11. S

taff

num

bers

– A

re th

ere

enou

gh p

eopl

e em

ploy

ed to

man

age

Your

Com

men

ts (p

rovid

e deta

ils)

the

prot

ecte

d ar

ea?

Scor

e

Ther

e ar

e no

sta

ff0

Staf

f num

bers

are

inad

equa

te fo

r crit

ical

man

agem

ent a

ctiv

ities

1

Staf

f num

bers

are

bel

ow o

ptim

um le

vel f

or c

ritic

al m

anag

emen

tac

tiviti

es2

Staf

f num

bers

are

ade

quat

e fo

r the

man

agem

ent n

eeds

of t

he s

ite3

Addi

tiona

l Poi

nt

a

. The

re is

add

ition

al s

uppo

rt fro

m v

olun

teer

pro

gram

s, lo

cal

com

mun

ities

, etc

+1

12. C

urre

nt b

udge

t – Is

the

curr

ent b

udge

t suf

ficie

nt?

Your

Com

men

tsSc

ore

In th

e co

mm

ents

col

umn:

ple

ase

deta

il of

the

sour

ces

of fu

ndin

g

Ther

e is

no

budg

et fo

r the

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea0

The

avai

labl

e bu

dget

is in

adeq

uate

for b

asic

man

agem

ent n

eeds

and

pres

ents

a s

erio

us c

onst

rain

t to

the

capa

city

to m

anag

e1

The

avai

labl

e bu

dget

is a

ccep

tabl

e, b

ut c

ould

be

furth

er im

prov

ed to

fully

ach

ieve

effe

ctiv

e m

anag

emen

t2

The

avai

labl

e bu

dget

is s

uffic

ient

and

mee

ts th

e fu

ll m

anag

emen

tne

eds

of th

e pr

otec

ted

area

3


20

Addi

tiona

l Poi

nts

a

. The

re is

a s

ecur

e bu

dget

for t

he m

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

and

its

man

agem

ent n

eeds

on

a m

ulti–

year

bas

is.

+2

b

. The

bud

get i

s no

t ent

irely

dep

ende

nt o

n go

vern

men

t fun

ding

;

i

nste

ad, f

undi

ng a

lso

com

es fr

om N

GO c

ontri

butio

ns, t

axes

,

f

ees,

etc

.+1

TOTA

L fo

r Inp

uts

(C):

14 o

r adj

uste

d sc

ore

D. P

roce

ss –

How

do

we

go a

bout

man

agem

ent?

Ass

essm

ent o

f the

way

in w

hich

man

agem

ent i

s co

nduc

ted

13. E

duca

tion

and

awar

enes

s pr

ogra

m –

Is th

ere

a pl

anne

dYo

urCo

mm

ents

(list

your

majo

r com

mun

icatio

n ac

tions

)

ed

ucat

ion

prog

ram

?Sc

ore

Ther

e is

no

educ

atio

n an

d aw

aren

ess

prog

ram

0

Ther

e is

a li

mite

d an

d ad

hoc

edu

catio

n an

d aw

aren

ess

prog

ram

,bu

t no

over

all p

lann

ing

for t

his

com

pone

nt1

Ther

e is

a p

lann

ed e

duca

tion

and

awar

enes

s pr

ogra

m b

ut th

ere

are

still

ser

ious

gap

s2

Ther

e is

a p

lann

ed a

nd e

ffect

ive

educ

atio

n an

d aw

aren

ess

prog

ram

fully

link

ed to

the

obje

ctiv

es a

nd n

eeds

of t

he p

rote

cted

are

a3

14. C

omm

unic

atio

n be

twee

n st

akeh

olde

rs a

nd m

anag

ers

– Is

ther

eYo

urCo

mm

ents

com

mun

icat

ion

betw

een

stak

ehol

ders

and

man

ager

s?Sc

ore

Ther

e is

littl

e or

no

com

mun

icat

ion

betw

een

man

ager

s an

dst

akeh

olde

rs in

volv

ed in

the

MPA

0

Ther

e is

com

mun

icat

ion

betw

een

man

ager

s an

d st

akeh

olde

rs b

ut th

isis

not

a p

lann

ed o

r sch

edul

ed p

rogr

am1

Ther

e is

a p

lann

ed c

omm

unic

atio

n pr

ogra

m th

at is

bei

ng u

sed

tobu

ild s

uppo

rt fo

r the

MPA

am

ongs

t rel

evan

t sta

keho

lder

s bu

tim

plem

enta

tion

is li

mite

d ye

t.2

Ther

e is

a p

lann

ed c

omm

unic

atio

n pr

ogra

m th

at is

bei

ng im

plem

ente

dto

bui

lt su

ppor

t for

the

MPA

am

ongs

t rel

evan

t sta

keho

lder

s.3

21


Addi

tiona

l Poi

nt

T

here

is s

ome

com

mun

icat

ion

with

oth

er M

PA m

anag

ers

(and

for

e

xam

ple

exch

ange

s of

goo

d pr

actic

es )

+1

15. S

take

hold

er in

volv

emen

t and

par

ticip

atio

n –

Do s

take

hold

ers

Your

Com

men

ts

ha

ve m

eani

ngfu

l inp

ut to

man

agem

ent d

ecis

ions

?Sc

ore

Stak

ehol

ders

hav

e no

inpu

t int

o de

cisi

ons

rela

ting

to th

e m

anag

emen

tof

the

prot

ecte

d ar

ea0

Stak

ehol

ders

hav

e so

me

inpu

t int

o di

scus

sion

s re

latin

g to

man

agem

ent b

ut n

o di

rect

invo

lvem

ent i

n th

e re

sulti

ng d

ecis

ions

1

Stak

ehol

ders

dire

ctly

con

tribu

te to

som

e de

cisi

ons

man

agem

ent

2

Stak

ehol

ders

dire

ctly

par

ticip

ate

in m

akin

g de

cisi

ons

rela

ting

to m

anag

emen

t3

Addi

tiona

l Poi

nt

a

. The

re a

re c

lear

fina

ncia

l con

tribu

tions

/ ag

reem

ents

bet

wee

n M

PA

a

nd to

uris

m o

pera

tors

to re

cove

r MPA

reso

urce

s re

nts

for

loc

al b

enef

its+1

16. I

ndig

enou

s pe

ople

– D

o in

dige

nous

and

trad

ition

al p

eopl

esYo

urCo

mm

ents

resi

dent

or r

egul

arly

usi

ng th

e M

PA h

ave

inpu

t to

man

agem

ent

Scor

e

de

cisi

ons?

Indi

geno

us a

nd tr

aditi

onal

peo

ples

hav

e no

inpu

t int

o de

cisi

ons

rela

ting

to th

e m

anag

emen

t of t

he p

rote

cted

are

a0

Indi

geno

us a

nd tr

aditi

onal

peo

ples

hav

e so

me

inpu

t int

o di

scus

sion

sre

latin

g to

man

agem

ent b

ut n

o di

rect

invo

lvem

ent i

n th

e re

sulti

ngde

cisi

ons

1

Indi

geno

us a

nd tr

aditi

onal

peo

ples

dire

ctly

con

tribu

te to

som

ede

cisi

ons

rela

ting

to m

anag

emen

t2

Indi

geno

us a

nd tr

aditi

onal

peo

ples

dire

ctly

par

ticip

ate

in m

akin

gde

cisi

ons

rela

ting

to m

anag

emen

t3


22

17. S

taff

train

ing

– Is

ther

e en

ough

trai

ning

for s

taff?

Your

Com

men

ts (l

ist yo

ur m

ajor t

rain

ing

need

s)Sc

ore

Staf

f are

unt

rain

ed.

0

Staf

f tra

inin

g an

d sk

ills

are

low

rela

tive

to th

e ne

eds

of th

em

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

.1

Staf

f tra

inin

g an

d sk

ills

are

adeq

uate

, but

cou

ld b

e fu

rther

impr

oved

to fu

lly a

chie

ve th

e ob

ject

ives

of m

anag

emen

t.2

Staf

f tra

inin

g an

d sk

ills

are

in tu

ne w

ith th

e m

anag

emen

t nee

ds o

fth

e m

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

, and

with

ant

icip

ated

futu

re n

eeds

.3

18. E

quip

men

t – Is

the

site

ade

quat

ely

equi

pped

?Yo

urCo

mm

ents

Scor

e

Ther

e is

littl

e or

no

equi

pmen

t and

faci

litie

s.0

Ther

e is

som

e eq

uipm

ent a

nd fa

cilit

ies

but t

hese

are

who

lly in

adeq

uate

.1

Mos

t of e

quip

men

t and

faci

litie

s ar

e ad

equa

te a

nd m

aint

aine

d.2

Ther

e is

ade

quat

e eq

uipm

ent a

nd fa

cilit

ies

and

it is

wel

l mai

ntai

ned.

3

19. M

onito

ring

and

eval

uatio

n –

Are

biop

hysi

cal,

soci

oeco

nom

icYo

urCo

mm

ents

and

gove

rnan

ce in

dica

tors

mon

itore

d an

d ev

alua

ted?

Scor

e

Ther

e is

no

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

the

biop

hysi

cal,

soci

oeco

nom

ican

d go

vern

ance

con

text

of t

he M

PA0

Ther

e is

som

e ad

hoc

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion,

but

no

over

all

stra

tegy

and

/or n

o re

gula

r col

lect

ion

of re

sults

1

Ther

e is

an

agre

ed a

nd im

plem

ente

d m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatio

nsy

stem

but

resu

lts a

re n

ot s

yste

mat

ical

ly u

sed

for m

anag

emen

t2

A go

od m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatio

n sy

stem

exi

sts,

is w

ell i

mpl

emen

ted

and

used

in a

dapt

ive

man

agem

ent

3

Addi

tiona

l Poi

nts

a.Th

e M

PA p

artic

ipat

es a

s a

site

in n

atio

nal o

r int

erna

tiona

l

23


envi

ronm

enta

l mon

itorin

g pr

ogra

ms

such

CAR

ICOM

P, C

PACC

,GC

RMN,

AGG

RA o

r sim

ilar.

(Pro

vide

the

nam

e of

the

prog

ram

(s))

+1

b. T

here

is a

n Em

erge

ncy

Resp

onse

Cap

abili

ty in

pla

ce to

miti

gate

impa

cts

from

non

thre

ats

+1

TOTA

L fo

r pro

cess

(D):

25 o

r adj

uste

d sc

ore

E. O

utpu

ts –

Wha

t wer

e th

e re

sults

? As

sess

men

t of t

he im

plem

enta

tion

of m

anag

emen

tpr

ogra

ms

and

actio

ns; d

eliv

ery

of p

rodu

cts

and

serv

ices

N.B

.: Th

e ou

tput

s sh

ould

be

asse

ssed

bas

ed o

n pr

ogre

ss s

ince

the

last

ass

essm

ent.

If th

is is

the

firs

t tim

e th

e Sc

ore

Card

is b

eing

use

d, r

espo

nden

tssh

ould

ass

ess

outp

uts

over

the

last

3 y

ears

. For

new

ly e

stab

lish

MPA

s, re

spon

dent

s m

ay h

ave

to s

kip

this

sec

tion.

20. C

onte

xt in

dica

tors

– h

ave

cont

ext i

ndic

ator

s be

en im

prov

ed?

Your

Com

men

tsSc

ore

a.Le

gal s

tatu

s ha

s im

prov

ed ( r

efer

s to

que

stio

n 1.

Leg

al s

tatu

s )+2

b.Re

gula

tions

hav

e im

prov

ed (r

efer

s to

que

stio

n 2.

MPA

Reg

ulat

ions

)+2

c.La

w e

nfor

cem

ent h

as im

prov

ed (r

efer

s to

que

stio

n 3.

Law

enf

orce

men

t)+2

d.Bo

unda

ry d

emar

catio

n ha

s im

prov

ed (r

efer

s to

que

stio

n 4.

MPA

Bou

ndar

y de

mar

catio

n)+2

e.Th

e M

PA h

as b

een

inte

grat

ed in

to IC

M (r

efer

s to

que

stio

n 5.

Inte

grat

ion

of th

e M

PA)

+2

f.Th

e re

sour

ce in

vent

ory

has

impr

oved

(ref

ers

to q

uest

ion

6.Re

sour

ce in

vent

ory)

+2

g.St

akeh

olde

r aw

aren

ess

and

conc

ern

has

impr

oved

(ref

ers

to q

uest

ion

7.)

+2

21. P

rodu

cts

and

serv

ices

Your

Com

men

tsSc

ore

a.Si

gns

– si

gns

are

now

ava

ilabl

e, o

r new

one

hav

e be

en in

stal

led

+1


24

b.M

oorin

gs –

moo

rings

are

now

ava

ilabl

e, o

r new

one

hav

ebe

en in

stal

led

+2

c.Ed

ucat

ion

mat

eria

ls –

edu

catio

n m

ater

ials

are

ava

ilabl

e, o

r new

one

have

bee

n de

velo

ped

+1

22. M

echa

nism

s fo

r sta

keho

lder

par

ticip

atio

n in

dec

isio

n-m

akin

gYo

urCo

mm

ents

and/

or m

anag

emen

t act

iviti

es (e

.g. a

dvis

ory

coun

cil)

– ar

eSc

ore

mec

hani

sms

avai

labl

e to

ens

ure

stak

ehol

der p

artic

ipat

ion?

Ther

e ar

e no

mec

hani

sms

for s

take

hold

er p

artic

ipat

ion

inde

cisi

on-m

akin

g an

d/or

man

agem

ent a

ctiv

ities

0

Ther

e ar

e so

me

mec

hani

sms

for s

take

hold

er p

artic

ipat

ion

inde

cisi

on-m

akin

g an

d/or

man

agem

ent a

ctiv

ities

, but

not

suf

ficie

nt1

Ther

e ar

e su

ffici

ent m

echa

nism

s fo

r sta

keho

lder

par

ticip

atio

n in

deci

sion

-mak

ing

and/

or m

anag

emen

t act

iviti

es2

23. E

nviro

nmen

tal e

duca

tion

activ

ities

for s

take

hold

ers

Your

Com

men

ts

(e

.g. p

ublic

out

ings

at t

he M

PA) –

hav

e ed

ucat

ion

activ

ities

Scor

e

be

en d

evel

oped

for s

take

hold

ers?

Ther

e ar

e no

edu

catio

n ac

tiviti

es a

vaila

ble

for s

take

hold

ers

0

Ther

e ar

e so

me

educ

atio

n ac

tiviti

es a

vaila

ble

for s

take

hold

ers,

but

they

are

not

suf

ficie

nt1

Ther

e ar

e su

ffici

ent e

duca

tion

activ

ities

ava

ilabl

e fo

r sta

keho

lder

s2

24. M

anag

emen

t act

iviti

es –

hav

e th

e tw

o cr

itica

l man

agem

ent

Your

Com

men

ts

ac

tiviti

es (l

iste

d in

the

data

she

et) b

een

impr

oved

toSc

ore

addr

ess

thre

ats

Man

agem

ent a

ctiv

ities

has

not

bee

n im

prov

ed0

Som

e m

easu

res

have

bee

n ta

ken

to im

prov

e m

anag

emen

t act

iviti

es1

Man

agem

ent a

ctiv

ities

hav

e be

en s

uffic

ient

ly im

prov

ed2

25


25. V

isito

r fac

ilitie

s –

does

the

MPA

hav

e su

ffici

ent v

isito

r fac

ilitie

s ?

Your

Com

men

tsSc

ore

Ther

e ar

e no

vis

itor f

acili

ties

and

ser v

ices

0

Visi

tor f

acili

ties

and

serv

ices

are

inap

prop

riate

for c

urre

nt le

vels

of

visi

tatio

n or

are

und

er c

onst

ruct

ion

1

Ther

e ar

e so

me

visi

tor f

acili

ties

and

serv

ices

, but

they

cou

ldbe

impr

oved

2

Visi

tor f

acili

ties

and

serv

ices

are

suf

ficie

nt fo

r cur

rent

leve

lsof

vis

itatio

n3

26. F

ees

– If

fees

(ent

ry fe

es -

tour

ism

, fin

es) a

re a

pplie

d, d

o th

eyYo

urCo

mm

ents

help

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea m

anag

emen

t?Sc

ore

Alth

ough

a fe

e sy

stem

exi

sts,

fees

are

not

col

lect

ed0

The

fees

are

col

lect

ed, b

ut th

ey g

o st

raig

ht to

cen

tral g

over

nmen

t and

are

not r

etur

ned

to th

e m

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

or i

ts e

nviro

ns1

The

fees

are

col

lect

ed, b

ut th

ey a

re d

isbu

rsed

to th

e lo

cal a

utho

rity

rath

er th

an th

e m

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

2

Ther

e ar

e fe

es fo

r vis

iting

the

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea th

at h

elp

tosu

ppor

t thi

s an

d/or

oth

er m

arin

e pr

otec

ted

area

s3

27. S

taff

Trai

ning

Your

Com

men

tsSc

ore

Staf

f was

trai

ned

but c

ould

be

furth

er im

prov

ed to

fully

ach

ieve

the

obje

ctiv

es o

f man

agem

ent

2

Staf

f was

trai

ned

in tu

ne w

ith th

e m

anag

emen

t nee

ds o

f the

mar

ine

prot

ecte

d ar

ea, a

nd w

ith a

ntic

ipat

ed fu

ture

nee

ds3


26

TOTA

L fo

r out

puts

(E):

33 o

r adj

uste

d sc

ore

F. O

utco

mes

– W

hat d

id w

e ac

hiev

e? A

sses

smen

t of t

he o

utco

mes

and

the

exte

ntto

whi

ch th

ey a

chie

ved

obje

ctiv

es

28. O

bjec

tives

– H

ave

MPA

obj

ectiv

es (l

iste

d in

the

data

she

etYo

urCo

mm

ents

page

) bee

n ad

dres

sed?

Scor

e

Man

agem

ent o

bjec

tives

hav

e no

t bee

n ad

dres

sed

0

Man

agem

ent o

bjec

tives

hav

e be

en a

ddre

ssed

som

ewha

t1

Man

agem

ent o

bjec

tives

hav

e be

en s

uffic

ient

ly a

ddre

ssed

2

Man

agem

ent o

bjec

tives

hav

e be

en s

igni

fican

tly a

ddre

ssed

3

29. T

hrea

ts –

Hav

e th

reat

s (li

sted

in th

e da

ta s

heet

pag

e)Yo

urCo

mm

ents

been

redu

ced?

Scor

e

Thre

ats

have

incr

ease

d0

Thre

ats

have

sta

yed

at a

ppro

xim

atel

y th

e sa

me

leve

ls1

Thre

ats

have

bee

n re

duce

d so

mew

hat

2

Thre

ats

have

bee

n la

rgel

y re

duce

d3

30. R

esou

rce

cond

ition

s– H

ave

reso

urce

con

ditio

ns im

prov

ed?

Your

Com

men

tsSc

ore

Reso

urce

con

ditio

ns h

ave

decl

ined

0

Reso

urce

con

ditio

ns h

ave

stay

ed a

t app

roxi

mat

ely

the

sam

e le

vels

1

Reso

urce

con

ditio

ns h

ave

impr

oved

som

ewha

t2

Reso

urce

con

ditio

ns h

ave

impr

oved

sig

nific

antly

3

27


31. C

omm

unity

wel

fare

– H

as c

omm

unity

wel

fare

impr

oved

?Yo

urCo

mm

ents

(pro

vide s

ome e

xam

ples

)Sc

ore

Live

lihoo

ds a

nd s

tand

ards

of l

ivin

g in

the

com

mun

ity h

ave

decl

ined

0

Live

lihoo

ds a

nd s

tand

ards

of l

ivin

g in

the

com

mun

ity h

ave

stay

edap

prox

imat

ely

the

sam

e1

Live

lihoo

ds a

nd s

tand

ards

of l

ivin

g in

the

com

mun

ity h

ave

impr

oved

som

ewha

t2

Live

lihoo

ds a

nd s

tand

ards

of l

ivin

g in

the

com

mun

ity h

ave

impr

oved

sig

nific

antly

3

Addi

tiona

l poi

nts

a.M

PA m

anag

emen

t is

com

patib

le w

ith th

e lo

cal c

ultu

re, i

nclu

ding

tradi

tiona

l pra

ctic

es, r

elat

ions

hips

, soc

ial s

yste

ms,

cul

tura

l fea

ture

s,hi

stor

ic s

ites

and

mon

umen

ts li

nked

to m

arin

e re

sour

ces

and

uses

+1

b.Re

sour

ce u

se c

onfli

cts

have

bee

n re

duce

d+1

c.Be

nefit

s fro

m th

e M

PA a

re e

quita

bly

dist

ribut

ed+1

d.Th

e no

n-m

onet

ary

bene

fits

of th

e m

arin

e re

sour

ces

to s

ocie

tyha

ve b

een

mai

ntai

ned

or e

nhan

ced

+1

32. E

nviro

nmen

tal a

war

enes

s –

Has

com

mun

ity e

nviro

nmen

tal

Your

Com

men

ts

aw

aren

ess

impr

oved

?Sc

ore

Envi

ronm

enta

l aw

aren

ess

of re

sour

ce c

ondi

tions

, thr

eats

and

man

agem

ent a

ctiv

ities

has

dec

lined

0

Envi

ronm

enta

l aw

aren

ess

has

stay

ed a

ppro

xim

atel

y th

e sa

me

1

Envi

ronm

enta

l aw

aren

ess

has

impr

oved

som

ewha

t2

Envi

ronm

enta

l aw

aren

ess

has

impr

oved

sig

nific

antly

3

33. C

ompl

ianc

e –

Are

user

s co

mpl

ying

with

MPA

regu

latio

ns?

Your

Com

men

tsSc

ore

Less

than

25%

of u

sers

are

com

plyi

ng w

ith re

gula

tions

0


28

25%

to 5

0% o

f use

rs a

re c

ompl

ying

with

regu

latio

ns1

50%

- 75

% o

f use

rs a

re c

ompl

ying

with

regu

latio

ns2

Over

75%

of u

sers

are

com

plyi

ng w

ith re

gula

tions

3

34. S

take

hold

er s

atis

fact

ion

– Ar

e th

e st

akeh

olde

rs s

atis

fied

with

Your

Com

men

ts

th

e pr

oces

s an

d ou

tput

s of

the

MPA

?Sc

ore

Less

than

25%

of s

take

hold

ers

are

satis

fied

with

the

proc

ess

and

outp

uts

of th

e M

PA0

25 to

50%

of s

take

hold

ers

are

satis

fied

with

the

proc

ess

and

outp

uts

of th

e M

PA1

50%

to 7

5% o

f sta

keho

lder

s ar

e sa

tisfie

d w

ith th

e pr

oces

s an

dou

tput

s of

the

MPA

2

Over

75%

of s

take

hold

ers

are

satis

fied

with

the

proc

ess

and

outp

uts

of th

e M

PA3

Addi

tiona

l poi

nts

a.St

akeh

olde

rs fe

el th

at th

ey a

re a

ble

to e

ffect

ivel

y pa

rtici

pate

inm

anag

emen

t dec

isio

ns+1

b.St

akeh

olde

rs fe

el th

at th

ey a

re a

dequ

atel

y re

pres

ente

d in

the

MPA

deci

sion

-mak

ing

proc

esse

s+1

TOTA

L fo

r out

com

es (F

):27

or a

djus

ted

scor

e

29


User

s w

ill h

ave

a sc

ore

for e

ach

of th

e si

x el

emen

ts o

f eva

luat

ion

afte

r com

plet

ing

the

asse

ssm

ent f

orm

. If s

ome

ques

tions

are

not

sco

red

(e.g

., no

t rel

evan

t), th

em

axim

um s

core

sho

uld

be c

hang

ed to

an

adju

sted

sco

re (m

axim

um p

ossi

ble

scor

e m

inus

poi

nts

for q

uest

ion

that

are

not

app

licab

le).

Y our

fina

l sco

re w

ill b

e a

perc

enta

ge o

f you

r sco

re o

ver t

he a

djus

ted

max

imum

sco

re.

Scor

e Su

mm

ary

Fina

l sco

re is

the

perc

enta

geYo

ur s

core

Max

imum

Adju

sted

of y

our s

core

ove

r the

poss

ible

sco

rem

axim

um s

core

adju

sted

max

imum

sco

re.

Fina

l sco

re fo

r Con

text

(A)

26

Fina

l sco

re fo

r Pla

nnin

g (B

)14

Fina

l sco

re fo

r Inp

uts

(C)

14

Fina

l sco

re fo

r Pro

cess

(D)

25

Fina

l sco

re fo

r Out

puts

(E)

33

Fina

l sco

re fo

r Out

com

es (F

)27

Tota

l (=

A+B+

C+D+

E+F)


30

Annex 1:Useful References

Day J., Hockings M., and Jones G. 2003. Mea-suring effectiveness in Marine ProtectedAreas – Principles and Practice.

Hatcher B., Sale P., Usseglio P., and AriasGonzales J. Recommendations on Meth-odology for Monitoring the Effectivenessof MPA Management. Report toMesoamerican Barrier Reef System ProjectCoordination Unit.

Hockings, M. 1998. Evaluating managementof protected areas: integrating planning andevaluation. Environmental Management22(3): 337–346.

Hockings, M. 1999. Management effectivenessof protected areas. Theme issue. Parks 9(2).

Hockings M. 2000. Evaluating protected AreaManagement. A review of systems for as-sessing management effectiveness of pro-tected areas. School of Natural and RuralSystems.

Hockings, M., Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. 2000.Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework forAssessing the Management of ProtectedAreas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cam-bridge, UK, 121 pages.

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N. andParrish, J. 2000b. The Enhancing OurHeritage Toolkit – Book 1. A trainingmanual on how to build assessment, moni-toring and reporting systems on the man-agement effectiveness of World HeritageSites. 36pp. www.enhancingheritage.net

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N. andParrish, J. 2000c. The Enhancing Our

Heritage Toolkit – Book 2. A workbook onhow to build assessment, monitoring andreporting systems on the management ef-fectiveness of World Heritage Sites. 136pp.www.enhancingheritage.net

Kelleher, G. 1999. Guidelines for Marine Pro-tected Areas. IUCN–The World Conserva-tion Union, Gland, Switzerland.

Mangubhai, S. 2002. Biological and socioeco-nomic monitoring programmes and assess-ment recently carried out or underway inMPAs in selected countries in the WesternIndian Ocean: Kenya, Madagascar,Seychelles, South Africa and Tanzania.Unpublished report, IUCN Eastern AfricaRegional Office, Nairobi, Kenya.

Pomeroy R., Parks J., and Watson L. 2002.Working Draft Guidebook: How is YourMPA Doing? Guidebook for EvaluationEffectiveness of Marine Protected Areas. AResource Guide on Biophysical, Socio–Eonomic and Governance Indicators forEvaluating MPA Managment Effectiveness.http://effectivempa.noaa.gov

Stolton S. et al. 2003. Reporting Progress atprotected Area Sites. A siple site–leveltracking tool developed for the World Bank,Washington, DC and WWF.

WWF. Improving Protected Area Management– WWF’s Rapid Assessment andPrioritisation Methodology.

http://www.panda.org/downloads/forests/Summary_final.pdf

score card to assess progress in achieving management...

Documents