Focal Area: Status and trends of the components of biodiversity

Headline Indictor: Coverage of protected areas

Key Indicator Partners:      

Indicator Partners: 

Equilibrium Consultants

World Bank

Data Available: Global Baseline

Development Status: Methodology under review

Most countries have developed protected area systems as a core strategy to protect biodiversity and environment, and protected areas across the world have increased dramatically in number, area and size. The many values of protected areas for biodiversity conservation, protection of cultural heritage, maintenance of vital ‘ecosystem services’ and provision of a range of socioeconomic benefits have been well recognized. However, the declaration of a protected area does not always result in adequate protection, and the need to evaluate protected area management effectiveness is of critical importance.

Various methodologies and indicators have been developed at different levels to access the management effectivenessof protected areas. In order to create a global management effectiveness indicator a mechanism was created to enable cross-analysis of data from methodologies using a variety of indicators. This mechanism has two components:‘matching’ the topic of each indicator to a common ‘summary indicator’; and establishing a ‘translation’ system so that the different scoring systems are incorporated in a consistent way. Fourteen summary indicators have been created for the global indicator:

• Values and significance • Threats and constraints • Site design and establishment • Management planning • Management resources • Information base • Internal management systems and processes • Law enforcement • Stakeholder relations • Visitor management • Achievement of work program • Conservation outcomes • Natural & cultural resource management systems • Community outcomes

Summary indicators scores are generated for each management effectiveness assessment, and from the scores for all the assessments it is possible to generate global and regional averages for each of the 14 summary indicators which can be compared over time.

Over 40 Management Effectiveness Evaluation methodologies have been entered into the Global Studies database. The database contains records of 7,000 assessments from more than 100 countries, covering over 5,000 protected areas (some sites have repeated assessments). Coverage of the protected area management effectiveness indicator is still patchy although new assessments are being undertaken at an increasing rate and more countries are establishing assessment systems across their protected area networks.

Data for this indicator is generated at the site (protected area) level, as a result this global indicator can be disaggregated to look at trends at a regional and national scale.

Percentage of protected areas in which management effectiveness studies have been completed

The figure represents the coverage of the indicator.

Management effectiveness scores will form thetrue indicator

Source: UNEP-WCMC.

This indicator can be used to generate global scores for each of the summary indicators of management effectiveness. Management effectiveness can therefore been interpreted separately for each summary indicator or as a whole by combining the scores from all indicators.

An increase in score would indicate an increase in the management effectiveness of protected areas and in turn a decreased risk of biodiversity loss. A decrease in score would indicate a decrease in protected area management effectiveness and in turn an increased risk of biodiversity loss.

‘Across a sample of 3080 protected areas where data from management effectiveness assessments is available, management varied from weak to effective, with about a third of them showing clear inadequacies. The overall mean score for management effectiveness was 0.53 on a scale of zero (completely ineffective management) to one (highly effective management). About 14% of the surveyed areas lacked basic requirements to operate effectively, and did not have an effective management presence. Strongest management factors recorded on average were gazettal, effectiveness of governance, threat monitoring, appropriateness of protected area design, conservation of values and marking of boundaries, while the weakest aspects of management included community benefit programs, funding reliability and adequacy, management effectiveness evaluation, facility and equipment maintenance, communication, and community involvement.’

Management effectiveness of protected areas is calculated from the sites level assessments undertaken in protected areas around the world. The global database on management effectiveness can be used to report at national, regional and global levels. Site level data is not publically available unless specific approval for this has been granted by the data provider. At present, data on where assessments have been conducted are available online at www.wdpa.org/me but data on the results of assessments is not available online, although this may be possible in future at national and regional levels or where specific approval to access site level data has been given.

UNEP-WCMC and the University of Queensland are currently working with support from project partners on the collection of protected areas management effectiveness data to be incorporated into the global database. In 2009, the Management Effectiveness indicators will be incorporated into the World Database on Protected Areas, allowing users to track progress on management effectiveness of protected areas sites.