Introduction
Protected Areas and Other International Designations as Conservation Strategies
Importance and Requirements to Measure PA Management Effectiveness
Biosphere Reserves and Their Evaluation
Theoretical Underpinnings
Resilience theory for complex social-ecological systems
Adaptive management
Adaptive management applied to protected areas and biosphere reserves
Methods
Development of the BREMi Tool
Review of existing PAME tools and selection of a baseline framework
Adaptation of the selected CRF framework to create the BREMi tool
WCPA elements | BREMi indicators |
---|---|
(A, B, C, D. E, F) | |
34 BHIs (bold) | |
65 Indicators (italic) | |
A. CONTEXT | |
A.1 | Level of significance (values) |
A.1.1 | Key ecological values are identified and prioritized |
A.1.2 | Key socio-cultural values have been identified and prioritized |
A.1.3 | Potential for sustainable development is identified and prioritized |
A.1.4 | Site value for environmental research, monitoring and education is identified |
A.2 | Extent and severity of threats |
A.2.1 | Threats to nominated values are identified and severity evaluated |
A.3 | Constraint or support by political and/or civil environment |
A.3.1 | Civil and political contexts are favorable to management success |
A.3.2 | National authorities and leaders are supportive |
A.3.3 | Local community and civil society is supportive |
B. PLANNING | |
B.1 | Protected area gazettal |
B.1.1 | Core area(s) are gazetted (designated by law) nationally |
B.1.2 | Buffer zone(s) are partially or fully gazetted nationally |
B.2 | Legislation and policy framework |
B.2.1 | National protected area legislation is inclusive of BRs |
B.2.2 | Land use planning authorities account for the BR |
B.3 | Tenure issues |
B.3.1 | Land ownership status and related issues are well known |
B.3.2 | Issues of land tenure are accounted for in planning |
B.4 | Marking and security or fencing of boundaries |
B.4.1 | Core area(s) boundaries are known and demarcated (map/signage) |
B.4.2 | Buffer zone(s) boundaries are known and demarcated (map/signage) |
B.4.3 | The Transition zone’s boundary is known |
B.5 | Appropriateness of design (for BR functions) |
B.5.1 | Size and zoning are appropriate to the conservation of significant values |
B.5.2 | Size and zoning are adequate to conservation, sustainable development and research |
B.6 | Management planning |
B.6.1 | A management plan for the BR site is developed and adequate |
B.6.2 | Resources needed to reach set management objectives are defined |
B.6.3 | Management targets specific to the site values are determined |
B.6.4 | Indicators to monitor progress toward set targets are developed |
B.6.5 | Periodic Review and updating of the management plan is scheduled |
C. INPUT | |
C.1 | Adequacy of staff numbers |
C.1.1 | Staff number is adequate for effective management of the BR |
C.1.2 | Staff is adequately allocated to reach management objectives |
C.2 | Adequacy of current funding |
C.2.1 | Funds necessary to reach set management objectives are available |
C.2.2 | Available funds are allocated based on management objectives |
C.3 | Security and reliability of funding |
C.3.1 | Funds for the achievement of management objectives are secured |
C.3.2 | Sustainable financing mechanisms are in place |
C.4 | Adequacy of infrastructure, equipment and facilities |
C.4.1 | Appropriate vehicles, equipment and facilities are available |
C.5 | Adequacy of relevant and available information for management |
C.5.1 | Resources for monitoring set indicators and targets are available |
C.5.2 | Information needed to adequately manage the site is available |
D. PROCESS | |
D.1 | Effectiveness of governance and leadership |
D.1.1 | Governance type of the BR is adequate |
D.1.2 | Governance systems are free from corruption |
D.1.3 | Leadership is effective and adequate |
D.2 | Effectiveness of administration including financial management |
D.2.1 | Administrative/financial processes are adequate and effective |
D.3 | Management effectiveness evaluation undertaken |
D.3.1 | Management effectiveness evaluation is undertaken |
D.3.2 | Staff meetings are used for learning and adapting |
D.4 | Adequacy of building and maintenance systems |
D.4.1 | Maintenance of equipment and infrastructure is adequate |
D.5 | Adequacy of staff training |
D.5.1 | Training is adequately provided for staff based on needs |
D.6 | Staff/other management partners skill level |
D.6.1 | Expertise and skill level of staff and partners are adequate |
D.7 | Adequacy of human resource policies and procedures |
D.7.1 | Management policies and procedures are defined and adequate |
D.8 | Adequacy of law enforcement capacity |
D.8.1 | Responsible authorities are capable of enforcing policies and laws inside the BR |
D.9 | Involvement of communities and stakeholders |
D.9.1 | Stakeholders are involved in planning and decision-making |
D.10 | Communication program |
D.10.1 | Effective means of communication are used with stakeholders |
D.10.2 | An environmental awareness and education program is in place |
D.11 | Appropriate program of community benefit/assistance |
D.11.1 | Community use of natural resources is identified |
D.11.2 | Projects and activities of direct community benefit are in place |
D.12 | Visitor management (visitors catered for and impacts managed appropriately) |
D.12.1 | Ecotourism visitors are well catered for |
D.12.2 | Visitors’ impacts on values are controlled |
D.13 | Natural resource and cultural protection activities undertaken |
D.13.1 | Activities to conserve natural resources are implemented |
D.13.2 | Activities to protect cultural resources are implemented |
D.14 | Research and monitoring of natural and cultural management |
D.14.1 | Relevant research on natural and cultural values is undertaken |
D.14.2 | Condition/trends in the state of biodiversity values are monitored |
D.14.3 | Condition/trends in the state of cultural values are monitored |
D.15 | Threat monitoring |
D.15.1 | Major threats are monitored and reported |
E. OUTPUTS | |
E.1 | Achievement of set work program |
E.1.1 | Planned targets/objectives are being achieved |
E.2 | Results and outputs produced |
E.2.1 | Planned outputs of work program are delivered |
F. OUTCOMES | |
F.1 | Conservation of nominated values |
F.1.1 | Condition of the cultural heritage is well maintained |
F.1.2 | Natural integrity and biodiversity values are well conserved |
F.1.3 | Threats to nominated values are controlled/reduced |
F.2 | Effect of BR management on local community |
F.2.1 | The BR socio-economically benefits local community |
F.3 | Education, research and monitoring |
F.3.1 | Environmental awareness has increased based on activities |
F.3.2 | The site is regularly used for environmental research and monitoring |
BREMi Evaluation Differentiation from Periodic Review Evaluation
PR form (2002 version) | PR form (2013 version) | BREMi |
---|---|---|
Self-evaluation | Self-evaluation | Self-evaluation |
Qualitative | Mostly qualitativea | Mostly quantitativea |
Description based | Result/Action based | Result/Action based |
BR concept implementation focused | BR concept implementation focused | Management effectiveness focused, integrating BR conceptual aspects |
Description of present BR status; i.e., answers the question: what have you been doing so far? | Description of present BR status; i.e., answers the question: what have you been doing so far, including in light of past PRs? | Assessment of gap toward desired “optimal” BR status; i.e., answers the question: how far are you from doing your best? |
Built on conceptual definition of BR | Built on conceptual definition of BR | Built on accumulated evidence of success factors for BRs |
“Past to present” focus | “Past to present” focus | “Present to future” focus |
Evaluation unit is the BR | Evaluation unit is the BR | Evaluation unit is the BR managing organization |
Online Survey
Survey population
Survey protocol and administration method
BREMi-based assessment
BREMi data analysis
Results
BREMi Scores for The ARAB Biosphere Reserves
Trends within Countries and Across Contexts
Trends Across Different Aspects of Management
-
4 of the 6 “planning” BHIs were among the 10 highest scoring BHIs. The lowest scoring planning BHI was legislation and policy framework.
-
The 10 highest scoring BHIs also included level of significance (values) and extent and severity of threats from the “context” element of the WCPA framework, education research and monitoring from the “outcomes” element, and 3 of 15 “context” BHIs.
-
All 5 “input” BHIs scored among the 7 lowest with adequacy of staff numbers, adequacy of infrastructure equipment and facilities, and security and reliability of funding being the most deficient “input” BHIs (score < 5.00).
-
All “output” BHIs scored in the “basic” range (score 5.01–6.66).
-
None of the BHIs scored in the “clearly inadequate” range (<3.33).