Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management...
Transcript of 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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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.
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
6
7
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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)
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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.
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
10
11
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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):
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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)
Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals
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