Reporting / reviewing management effectiveness

Management effectiveness

Introduction

An MPA management plan (or plans) should not only explicitly detail the various management strategies that are, or will be, implemented in order to reach the goals of the MPA, but should contain objectives and indicators that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound (SMART) using an appropriate monitoring programme [1].

The extent to which the MPA is meeting its goals should be defined by the management plan’s indicators and objectives. These should be regularly reviewed with management practices revised and adapted as needed based on by the results of monitoring. Reviews of management effectiveness is therefore integral to adaptive management [2].

However, simple biological measures (e.g., abundances of focal marine mammal species) that reflect the delivery of protected area goals are just one dimension of a review of management effectiveness. Management effectiveness may also refer to the adequacy and appropriateness of chosen management systems and processes in place, (the overall focus of the Marine Mammal Management Self-Assessment Tool) as well as the delivery of these management systems and processes [3].

Seal © Jeff Hester

Reviewing the effectiveness of marine mammal management​

Ideally, an MPA should have conservation or recovery plans for marine mammal species. However, due to a range of factors, such as a species’ range or movement patterns, or a lack of available knowledge, many marine mammal species are instead subject to conservation (or recovery) plans at the national or regional levels or not at all.

Within MPAs, however, specific attention may be given to ‘focal’ marine mammal species, which includes species that are endemic, flagship, indicator, of economic value (such as for whale watching) or vulnerable. In these cases, MPA-specific vulnerability assessments or summaries of management actions that relate to a species (e.g. the Indo-Pacific humpback and Australian snubfin dolphins in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park) may be produced [4].

Regardless of whether there exist MPA-specific conservation plans for marine mammal species in the MPA, focal species of marine mammal should, if possible, be monitored (see Factsheet 13) and trends over time can be analysed with respect to the overall goals of the MPA [1].

Main management effectiveness evaluation tools

Year Organisation Tool name
2017
UICN
Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas: Standard, Version 1.1
2015
BIOPAMA / European Commission
Integrated Management Effectiveness Tool (IMET)
2008
UICN
Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management of Protected Areas (2nd edition)
2008
UNESCO
Enhancing our Heritage (EoH) Toolkit Assessing management effectiveness of natural World Heritage sites
2007
WWF-World Bank
Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) – Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Second Edition
2004
World Bank
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals for Marine Protected Areas – Revised version
2004
UICN
How is your MPA doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness
2003
WWF
Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management Methodology (RAPPAM)
2003
World Bank
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals for Marine Protected Areas
2003
WWF- World Bank
Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) – Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites
2000
UICN
Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management of Protected Areas (First edition)

Related news

Download pdf page:

Share this factsheets:

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Share on print