"Piloting the tracking tool for management effectiveness in wetlands protected under the Ramsar Convention."

Archna Chatterjee and Jamie Pittock, WWF

Background and context

With about 1400 Ramsar sites, covering an area of 124 million hectares, barely 9.7% of the total estimated wetland area of 1280 million hectares is protected as Wetlands of International Importance. What percentage of this 9.7 % is achieving the objectives for which these Ramsar sites were established is, however, not very well known. WWFs Global Freshwater Programme has planned, over the next ten years, to champion the protection and management of 250 million hectares of freshwater wetlands, more than trebling the number of protected freshwater wetlands worldwide. To secure long-term conservation benefits, it therefore, becomes imperative, that WWF and Ramsar put in as much effort into achieving sound and effective management of existing Ramsar sites as into designating new wetland protected areas.

Measuring this effectiveness is critical for learning, adapting and improving management actions to achieve the objectives set for any area, and to help this process the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) has developed a ‘framework’ for assessment. The WCPA framework aims both to provide some overall guidance in the development of assessment systems and to encourage standards for assessment and reporting. The WCPA framework is based on the idea that good protected area management follows a process that has six distinct stages, or elements:

  1. context
  2. planning
  3. inputs
  4. processes
  5. outputs
  6. outcomes

Table 1: Summary of the WCPA framework

Elements of evaluation / Explanation / Criteria that are assessed / Focus of evaluation
Context / Where are we now?
Assessment of importance, threats and policy environment /
  • significance
  • threats
  • vulnerability
  • national context
  • partners
/ Status
Planning / Where do we want to be?
Assessment of protected area design and planning /
  • protected area
  • legislation and policy
  • protected area system design
  • reserve design
  • management planning
/ Appropriateness
Inputs / What do we need?
Assessment of resources needed to carry out management / Resourcing of agency
Resourcing of site
Partners / Resources
Process / How do we go about it?
Assessment of the way in which management is conducted / Suitability of management processes / Efficiency
Appropriateness
Output / What were the results?
Assessment of the implementation of management programmes and actions; delivery of products and services / Results of management actions
Services and products / Effectiveness
Outcome / What did we achieve?
Assessment of the outcomes and the extent to which they achieved objectives / Impacts: effects of management in relation to objectives / Effectiveness
appropriateness

Source Hockings et al. (2002)

WWF has drafted a wetlands protected areas managementtracking tool that has been designed to fulfill the elements of evaluation included in the WCPA’s framework.

Purpose

The Tracking tool has been developed to help track and monitor progress of management effectiveness in wetland protected areas, particularly Ramsar sites, and more generally to help improve management effectiveness. The tool is based on the existing WWF-World Bank forest alliance tracking tool (

2. and the World Bank’sMPA score card ).

Broadly the tracking tool is:

  • Capable of providing a harmonized reporting system for protected area assessments within WCPA framework
  • Suitable for replication
  • Able to supply consistent data to allow tracking of progress over time
  • Relatively quick and easy to complete by protected area staff, so as not to be reliant on high levels of funding or other resources
  • Capable of providing a ‘score’ if required
  • Based around a system that provides for alternative text answers to each question, strengthening the scoring system
  • Easily understood by non-specialists, and
  • Nested within existing reporting systems to avoid duplication of effort

For many of these reasons the tracking tool assesses procedural outputs like preparation of management plans, rather than ecological outcomes that required expensive scientific surveys to collect relevant data on trends.

(Source: Reporting progress in protected areas: a site- level management effectiveness tracking tool, Sue Stolton et al, World Bank/WWF alliance for forest conservation and sustainable use, 2003)

The Tracking tool is designed as a multipurpose tool that would meet the needs of a variety of users and serve a number of purposes:

  • Individual site managers could use the tool at regular intervals (1-2 years) to track progress of their sites. This also helps maintain continuity in cases where site managers may change (for e.g. in countries like India)
  • Provincial and national governments could employ the tracking tool to assess progress of management programs in suites of sites, thus helping them to identify gaps for corrective action
  • Ramsar, CBD and other multi- lateral processes could effectively use the tool to assess trends in site management and identify gaps at a broader global scale
  • Global NGOs like WWF & multi-lateral institutions like the World Bank-GEF could use it as a handy tool to assess progress of their management programs in suites of sites for identifying gaps for corrective action and to constructively respond to internal and external queries on progress and outcomes of the investment of scarce resources.

The tracking tool’s optimal potential would be realized when it rolls up from individual site managers through national governments to provide data through national reports, to feed into a global database. Comparison in trends over time at global, continent, country, province, sites could then be made.

It is hoped that the development of this tool may contribute to measurements for the proposed protected areas management effectiveness tracking indicators proposed for adoption by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and Convention on Biological Diversity. In this context, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in partnership with the World Bank and WWF, among others, is considering the establishment of a global database of these tracking tool assessments to monitor global trends in protected areas management.

Limitations

The tracking tool has been designed to help report progress on management effectiveness and should not replace more detailed methods of assessment of the ecological status of wetland protected areas.. The tracking tool needs to be completed and regularly used by the site manager or other relevant site staff to be useful..This ‘simple’ approach is useful for prioritization of issues and improving the management process, but tells little about achievement of management objectives. The tool is not designed to allow detailed evaluation of ecological outcomes, but rather serves to provide a quick overview of the status of management steps identified in the WCPA framework.

The tracking tool’s ‘ scoring’ system is fraught with difficulties and possibilities for distortion, as it assumes, for example, that all the questions cover issues of equal weight. Limitations of this simple approach should therefore, be recognized.

The tracking tool can be completed by the site manager with input from other staff and, ideally, local stakeholders to validate the scoring. It has been designed to be easily answered without any field level research, but by referencing available reports and datasets.

Pilot Phase

In February 2005, WWF began preparations to field test the ‘tracking tool’ at Ramsar sites where WWF was undertaking a project or providing support to facilitate the process. An email communication went out to the WWF network’s freshwater staff seeking volunteers to test the tool. The official involvement of the Ramsar site manager in the testing of the drafttracking tool was required, so that the management agency’s response to the tool, their comments for its improvement and their ‘comfort’ factor in completing the formats could be judged and adequately incorporated in the revised version. The criteria for selection of sites for field testing were:

  • listed Ramsar site
  • agreement of the managing agency to jointly undertake the assessment;
  • diversity of reserves in terms of number (preferably 3-5), habitats, and tenures(eg. national park, provincial park, private land, etc);

The pilot phase ran from April-July 2005.

The Ramsar Sites

The eight Ramsar sites selected for the field testing were:

Reserve/site name / Ramsar site # / Area (ha) / Land tenure(s) / Habitat type(s)
(eg. lake, mangrove, etc)
Danube-DravaNational Park,(DDNP)Hungary, Beda-Karapancsa / 901/3HU016 / 1,150 ha / Mainly state-owned, small parts ownedprivately / Rivers, oxbow lakes and ponds in the floodplain; marshlands, reedbeds, meadows, willow bushes and gallery forests with ash, elm, alder and oak trees.
Kopacki rit Nature Park, Croatia / 583/3HR002 / 17,770 ha / A mixture of state and private ownership / Extensive Salix, Populus and Quercus woodland which is subject to spring flooding, together with numerous channels, oxbow lakes, Kopacki lake, extensive Phragmites beds and a large complex of fishponds.
KilomberoValley Ramsar Site / 1173/ ITZ003 / 14,400 ha / Agriculture land (small scale and irrigated farming) – private land / Flood plain
CatchmentForest reserves – under the Forest Department
Part of the UdzungwaNational Park – Under the Tanzania National Parks
Game Controlled Area – Kilombero - linking with the Selous Game reserve – under the Wildlife Division
Livestock keeping – communal land
National Park of Doñana (Parque Nacional de Doñana) / 234/ 3ES001. / 50,720 ha. / National park / Forests, lagoons, dunes sands, marshland and wetlands
Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna Cuatrociénegas / 734/4MX004 / 84,347 ha / Smallholdings and ejido [??] property
(59% -41%). / Inland wetland
Hundreds of small, spring-fed, travertine-lined pools; and other aquatic habitat as marshes, rivers, barial lakes and channels. Long isolation in specialised habitats (incl. unique gypsum dunes) has given
rise to high biological diversity and high endemism, with the site providing habitat for
numerous threatened or vulnerable species.
LakeMikri Prespa / 60/3GR008 / 5,078 ha / PrespaNational Forest (PNF). Despite its being called a “forest” the PNF covers the Greek part of both Micro (=Mikri) and Macro Prespa and its surrounding area. Its total area is 19,470 ha.
Ramsar wetland. The Ramsar site called Lake Mikri Prespa forms the core area of absolute protection of the PrespaNational Forest
Site of Community Importance (EU Habitats Directive) and a Special Protection Area (EU Birds Directive) Both are included within the PNF
PrespaPark: The Prespa Lakes have been declared (February 2000) the first transboundary protected area in the Balkans by the prime ministers of Albania, Greece and the FYR of Macedonia.
Landscape of exceptional beauty: according to Greek national legislation
Moreover several species of the flora and fauna of Prespa are included in the Annexes of the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
Public and Privateland / Habitats types based on the Ramsar classification listed in descending order of dominance:
O - Permanent freshwater lakes(> 8 ha);
N - Seasonal/intermittent/irregular rivers /streams/creeks,
Tp - Permanent freshwater marshes /pools,
Ts - Seasonal/intermittent freshwater marshes /pools,
3 – irrigated land (irrigation channels)
The site is an inland lake separated from Lake Megali Prespa by a narrow strip of alluvial deposits. Extensive reedbeds occupy the margins of the lake and there are extensive areas of floating and submerged aquatic plants. There are periodically flooded meadows within the site.
KeoladeoNational Park, Rajasthan, India / 230/2IN002 / 2873 ha / Provincial/region / state /
  • Waterstorage areas; reservoirs/barrages/dams/impoundments; (generally over 8 ha)
  • Seasonal/intermittentfreshwater marshes/pools on inorganic soil; includes sloughs, potholes, seasonally flooded meadows, sedge marshes
  • Permanent freshwater marshes/pools; ponds (below 8 ha), marshes and swamps on inorganic soils; with emergent vegetation water-logged for at least most of the growing season
  • Seasonal/intermittent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes floodplain lakes

Chilika Lake, Orissa, India / 229/ 2IN001 / 116500 ha / Provincial/ region/ state
Some parts private owned /
  • Permanent rivers/streams/creeks; includes waterfalls
  • Coastal freshwater lagoons; includes freshwater delta lagoons
  • Coastal brackish/saline lagoons; brackish to saline lagoons with at least one relatively narrow connection to the sea
  • Sand, shingle or pebble shores; includes sandbars, spits and sandy islets; includes dune systems and humid dune slacks (dominant)

The process

The tracking tool questionnaire (Annex 1) and the format for tracking tool assessment report (Annex 2) sent out to WWF contact persons for each of the Ramsar sites. Field visit (s) were undertaken to the site to meet the site manager. In some cases there was no specific manager, but the area was under a government department, and was managed in general along with area under the jurisdiction of that particular department. The tracking tool questionnaire was completed jointly with the site manager. In all cases the WWF project manager contributed to the assessment. The completed questionnaires and assessment reports were analiysed by WWF, based on which the tracking tool is being revised. This report outlines the major inputs received from the Ramsar site managers, on the practical utility of the tool, its usefulness in management planning and most of all the ease with which the tool could be completed.

The ‘Scores’ for the Ramsar Sites

Ramsar Sites and their ‘Scores’
Elements / Maximum possible score / DDNP Hungary, Beda-Karapancsa / Kopacki rit Nature Park, Croatia / Kilombero ValleyTanzania / National Park of Doñana, Spain / Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna Cuatrociénegas, Mexico / LakeMikri Prespa
Greece / KeoladeoNational Park, Rajasthan, India / Chilika lake, Orissa, India
Your Score / Adj.max. score* / Final score**(%) / Your Score / Adj.max. score* / Final score**(%) / Your Score / Adj.max score* / Final score**(%) / Your Score / Adj.max score* / Final score**(%) / Your Score / Adj.max score* / Final score**(%) / Your Score / Adj.max score* / Final score**(%) / Your Score / Adj.max score* / Final score**(%) / Your Score / Adj.max score* / Final score**(%)
Total score for Context (A) / 26 / 25 / 96 / 17 / 65.4 / 11 / 26 / 20 / 26 / 76.9 / 18 / 26 / 69.2 / 13 / 26 / 50 / 16 / 61.5 / 23 / 88.5
Total score for Planning (B) / 12 / 11 / 92 / 6 / 50 / 2 / 12 / 10 / 12 / 83.3 / 9 / 12 / 75.0 / 1 / 12 / 8.3 / 12 / 100 / 9 / 75
Total score for Inputs (C) / 13 / 12 / 92 / 9 / 69.2 / 1 / 13 / 10 / 13 / 76.9 / 10 / 15 / 66.7 / 4 / 13 / 30.8 / 8 / 61.5 / 11 / 84.6
Total score for Process (D) / 24 / 19 / 79 / 8 / 33.3 / 2 / 24 / 14 / 24 / 58.3 / 15 / 20 / 75.0 / 5 / 20 / 25 / 9 / 37.5 / 21 / 87.5
Total score for Outputs (E) / 13 / 12 / 92 / 10 / 76.9 / 7 / 10 / 70 / 10 / 13 / 76.9 / 4 / 7 / 57.1 / 8 / 61.5 / 9 / 69.2
Total score for Outcomes (F) / 27 / 23 / 85 / 9 / 33.3 / 13 / 22 / 59.1 / 16 / 27 / 59.3 / 14 / 27 / 51.9 / 16 / 59.2 / 17 / 62.1
Total (A+B+C+D+E+F) / 115 / 102 / 88.7 / 59 / 51.3 / 16 / 75 / 21.3 / 74 / 107 / 69.2 / 78 / 113 / 69.0 / 41 / 105 / 39.1 / 69 / 60 / 90 / 78.3

* If some questions are not scored (e.g., not relevant), the maximum score should be changed to an adjusted (adj.) score (maximum possible score minus points for question that are not applicable).

**Final score is the percentage of your score over the maximum (if all questions have been scored) or the adjusted maximum score.

The ‘score’ results are discussed only briefly, in as much as to show the utility of the tool, as the objective of the report is to analyse the feedback on the tool itself. While the report does not reflect much on the information received from the completed formats- suffices to say that one who has not been to any of these sites would get a good picture of the ground realities at these sites.Some interesting aspects emerge from studying these scores:

  • A wide variation in the final scores of DDNP, Hungary and Kopacki rit Nature Park,Croatia, both part of the transboundary floodplains of the Danube, clearly shows the differences in management systems and indicate where the improvements are needed. Management on DDNP side is much more efficient compared to Kopacki rit which is recovering from the vicious conflicts of the 1990s and the political challenges which followed, although in terms of biodiversity Kopacki rit is much more diverse. While both are Ramsar sites, Kopacki rit is not a national protected area, while DDNP is a national park, and this is reflected in tracking tool scores. These floodplains represent a single ecological unit and there should be cooperative ecosystem management applying the same high standards. The Middle Danube floodplains, with its different nature protection regimes (Hungary, Croatia and Serbia), can thus potentially benefit greatly from the use of the tracking tool to identify and highlight management issues to be addressed and to track progress over time.
  • Kilombero Valley Ramsar site, Tanzania, scores low, as it is still in the process of management planning. There is no dedicated site manger and staff. Very low scores for the planning, inputs and process sections reflect this and should provide the technical and financial investment avenues for the government and others. Till these are in place outputs and outcomes would always score poorly. As Kilombero prepares its management plan and begins to implement it from 2006, practical tools such as this would help steer the planning and its implementation in the right direction. Considering that Kilombero has a great many organizations both public and private, involved in its management, the tracking tool would be a useful and easy catalyst medium for action.
  • Doñanashows high scores for planning and inputs but the threats (namely illegal groundwater extraction, new highway projects, and new infrastructure for Sevilla’s harbour) have stayed at same levels bringing down the score for outcomes. This could be related to the fact that the wetland protected area is not integrated into the integrated river basin management plan. Mechanisms for stakeholder participation exist and are encouraging but need to be improved for better results.
  • Cuatrociénegas, Mexico,is a federal protected area and a Ramsar site with an average score. Threats from the over exploitation of water, exotic species and timber extractionhave stayed at same levels, the unorganised tourism to the protected area has increased, thereby increasing the threat level. An important aspect here is for management to focus on devising strategies for tourism regulation and promoting responsible tourism so it becomes an asset instead of a threat. The site scores well on stakeholder participation in decision making and management activities. Training opportunities could be made available to all staff instead of only for senior managers.
  • Lake Mikri Prespa, Greece, scored surprisingly low, inspite of its prestigious status as part of the transboundary PrespaPark, support by the heads of state of three nations namely, Albania, Macedonia and Greece. The site’s management planning does not meet expectations for such a site. However the management work being done by the NGO Society for Protection of Prespa is noteworthy and should be able to provide crucial support for a proper, long term management plan. The Prespa management body was established in 2003, but it has no personnel, inadequate funding (allocated but not transferred), and no long-term management plan. These elements are priorities for more effective management.
  • KeoladeoNational Park, Rajasthan, India is a World Heritage site and a National Park in addition to being a Ramsar site. It is also better known as a bird’s paradise.Its scores are average inspite of scoring 100 percent in the planning section of the tool. Being a National Park, it enjoys highest level of protection, which means that resource use by surrounding villages is not legally permitted. Alienation of villagers with park is a long standing issue.The park is also seen as a competitor with agriculture for water from the dam upstream. Drought years have seen worst expressions of public resistance to release of allocated share of water to the park. This problem calls for integrating the wetland into broader scale planning and better communication of the ecosystem services and livelihood security that KNP provides to the local people. Management planning must take into consideration stakeholder views and communication channels need to be strengthened.
  • Chilika lake, Orissa, India scored well, in keeping with the Ramsar Award it received in 2002. A dedicated management authority, a committed site manager at the helm, and progressive State policies have helped Chilika recover from its position on the Montreux Record.To maintain this status over long-term, an effective monitoring and evaluation program, a suite of performance indicators, agreed to by the stakeholders,must be put in place urgently, for measuring the outputs and the outcomes and for the adaptive management.The tracking tool could be an important component in the monitoring and evaluation protocol.
  • Ramsar sites which are also national level protected areas(eg DDNP, Keoladeo) have better scores as compared to sites which are only Ramsar sites (e.g Kopacki rit, Kilombero). One exception is Prespa which inspite being a transboundary protected area shows lower scores. Application of tracking tool on a regular basis could thus help national and provincial authorities in prioritising allocation of funds and personnel, for sites which are not protected areas to improve their standard of management to those sites that are protected areas.

Feedback from site managers