The Western Indian Ocean Marine Biodiversity …...The Western Indian Ocean Marine Biodiversity Conservation Project iv Progress in the Development of a Partnership Programme for Implementing

The Western Indian Ocean Marine Biodiversity Conservation Project

iProgress in the Development of a Partnership Programme for Implementing the Jakarta Mandate

Assessment of Management Effectiveness in Selected MarineProtected Areas in the Western Indian Ocean

Sue Wells

April 2004


ii Progress in the Development of a Partnership Programme for Implementing the Jakarta Mandate

The designation of geographical entities in this report, and the presentation of the material,

do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN, United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP), International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN) or the

Conventional Biological Diversity (CBD) concerning the legal status of any country, territory,

or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN, UNEP,ICRAN

or CBD.

This publication has been made possible by funding from ICRAN, UNEP and the Norwegian

Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD).

IUCN Eastern Africa Regional Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

© 2004 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

This publication may be reproduced in whole or part and in any form for education or non-

profit uses, without special permission from the copyright holder, provided

acknowledgement of the source is made. IUCN would appreciate receiving a copy of any

publication which uses this publication as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or other commercial purpose without the

prior written permission of IUCN.

Wells, S. 2004. Assessment of Management Effectiveness in Selected Marine Protected Areas

in the Western Indian Ocean. IUCN Eastern Africa Regional Programme, Nairobi,

Kenya, viii + 26 pp.

Kul Graphics Ltd, Maasai Road, off Mombasa Road, PO Box 18095, Nairobi, Kenya

Kul Graphics Ltd, Maasai Road, off Mombasa Road, PO Box 18095, Nairobi, Kenya

Sue Wells

IUCN-EARO Publications Service Unit, P. O. Box 68200 - 00200, Nairobi, Kenya; Telephone ++

254 20 890605-12; Fax ++ 254 20 890615; email: [email protected]

Published by:

Copyright:

Citation:

Design and Layout:

Printed by:

Cover Photographs:

Available from:


iiiProgress in the Development of a Partnership Programme for Implementing the Jakarta Mandate

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1.2. The WIO Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

2. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

2.1. Main principles involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

2.2. Activities involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

2.2.1. Introductory workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

2.2.2. Implementation teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

2.2.3. Compilation of worksheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

2.2.4. Review of worksheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

2.2.5. Preparation of assessment report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

2.3. Technical assistance provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

3. RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

3.1. Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

3.2. Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

3.3. Seychelles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

4. PROPOSED REVISIONS OF WORKBOOK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

4.2. Instructions on how to carry out an assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

4.3. Context assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

4.3.1. Management targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

4.3.2. Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

4.3.3. Stakeholder engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

4.3.4. National Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

4.4. Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

4.4.1. Adequacy of management plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

4.4.2. Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

4.5. Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

4.6. Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

4.6.1. Assessment of Management Processes Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

4.6.2. Assessment of capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

4.7. Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

4.7.1. Assessment of management plan implementation sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

4.8. Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

4.8.1. Assessment of Biodiversity Objectives/Assessment of Socio-economic

Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

4.8.2. Ranking threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

4.9. Additional points to consider in Workbook revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

CONTENTS


iv Progress in the Development of a Partnership Programme for Implementing the Jakarta Mandate

4.9.1. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

4.9.2. World Bank scorecard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

4.9.3. Final assessment report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

5. RELATED PROJECT ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

5.1. Input to World Parks Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

5.2. Exchange visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

5.3. Module for WIOMSA/CZMC training manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

6. CONSTRAINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

6.1. Capacity issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

6.2. Inadequate planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

6.3. Lack of direct involvement by senior levels of national protected area agencies . .20

6.4. Over-complex methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

6.5. Poor communication with the sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

7. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

8. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

8.1. Possible additional activities to complete the initial assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

8.2. Follow-up activities at each site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

8.3. Revision of the Workbook and expansion to other MPAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

8.4. Future assessments and sustainability of the programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

8.5. Improvements in monitoring, research and access to relevant information . . . . . . .23

9. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

ANNEX 1. Schedule of events and activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

ANNEX 2. Outputs produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26


vProgress in the Development of a Partnership Programme for Implementing the Jakarta Mandate

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to all those that participated in the pilot assessments, particularly the Kenya Wildlife ServiceWardens from Kisite and Mpunguti Marine Park and Reserve, Mombasa Marine Park and Reserve, Malindi andWatamu Marine Park and Reserve and Kiunga Marine National Reserve; Sam Weru and Ben Kavu from theMarine Park Headquarters in Mombasa; Dishon Murage from WWF Kiunga; the Wardens and their staff fromMafia Island Marine Park and Mnazi Bay Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park in Tanzania; Mr Rumisha from the Marineand Reserve Parks Unit, Tanzania; and Kerstin Henri and Nirmal Shah of Nature Seychelles for the Cousin IslandSpecial Reserve assessments. I would also like to thank Sangeeta Mangubhai for developing the first draftWorkbook for the Western Indian Ocean for assessing management effectiveness of marine protected areasand for her continuous support during the pilot assessments; Nyawira Muthiga for her efforts in rallying togetherfive MPA managers in Kenya, and her ongoing commitment to the process; and many from IUCN-EAROincluding Gordon Otieno for assistance with design; Wahida Shah and Dalmas Oyugi for their commitment andinput during the pilot assessments and the initial stages of the work, and Melita Samoilys and Julie Church forediting and for getting this report published. Photographs have been provided by myself - Sue Wells -JulieChurch, Rudy Van Der Elst and Dishon Murage.

The pilot assessments and the production of this report were made possible with financial support from UNEP,ICRAN, NORAD and IUCN.


vi Progress in the Development of a Partnership Programme for Implementing the Jakarta Mandate

ACRONYMS

AIE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Annual Income ExpenditureCBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention on Biological DiversityCORDIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Coral Reef Degradation of the Indian OceanCZMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Coastal Zone Management Centre, NetherlandsEAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Eastern African Marine EcoregionEARO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Eastern Africa Regional Office (IUCN)EARP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Eastern Africa Regional Programme (IUCN)GEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Global Environment FacilityGEMPA-EA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Group of Experts for Marine Protected Areas (Eastern Africa)GCRMN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Global Coral Reef Monitoring NetworkICAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Integrated Coastal Area ManagementICRAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Coral Reef Action NetworkICZM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Integrated Coastal Zone ManagementIUCN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The World Conservation UnionJICA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Japan International Corporate AgencyKSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kenya ShillingTRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Trades Records Analysis on Flora & fauna CommerceCITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Convention of International Trade of Endangered SpeciesKWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kenya Wildlife ServicesMBREMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mnazi Bay Ruvuma Estuary Marine ParkMETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Monitoring Effectiveness Task ForceMNP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marine National ParkMNR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marine National ReserveMOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Memorandum of UnderstandingMPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marine Protected AreaMPRU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marine Parks and Reserve Unit (Tanzania)NEPAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Partnership for African DevelopmentNGO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Non-Governmental OrganisationNOAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNORAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operationSFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Seychelles Fishing AuthorityTCMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tanzania Coastal Management ProgrammeTNC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Nature ConservancyUNDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNESCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganisationWCPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .World Commission on Protected AreasWIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Western Indian OceanWIOMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Western Indian Ocean Marine Science AssociationWPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .World Parks CongressWSSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .World Summit on Sustainable DevelopmentWWF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .World Wide Fund for Nature & World Wildlife Fund


viiProgress in the Development of a Partnership Programme for Implementing the Jakarta Mandate

the approach that has been developed by WCPA-Marine and which is also being tested at pilot sitesaround the world, of which Mafia Island Marine Park isone. An important aspect of the project was that it wasexperimental in nature, and it was made clear that siteswere helping to development a mechanism that, ifsuccessful, could increase the success of MPAs inmeeting their objectives. The project involves newconcepts for the region and a ‘language’ that is stilldeveloping.

Activities carried out

The project started with an introductory workshop forthe participating sites designed to ensure that theyunderstood the methodology and the process, and tohelp them make adaptations to suit their particularsituation. The first step was for each site to set up a small‘implementation team’ to lead the assessment,preferably comprising core technical staff and keystakeholders. The composition of the teams variedbetween sites, some making use of volunteerassistance, some using only Park staff, and one siteemploying a consultant. The Kenyan sites established a‘national co-ordinating team’ with two senior membersof Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) who provided technicalsupport as well as administrative and logisticalassistance. The implementation teams were responsiblefor completing the worksheets and then organisingworkshops at which the stakeholders could review themand reach consensus on the ratings given. Although allsites recognised the importance of this, many hadproblems scheduling formal meetings andconsultations, and the process used for review was veryvariable. All sites found that a questionnaire, ratherthen the tabular-format worksheets, was an easiermeans of getting feedback from stakeholders. Eachsite produced a final assessment report. These werevariable in quality, depending on the experience andskills of the MPA staff in writing and analysis.

Results

Although the methodology was probably too complexfor some sites, all involved found a benefit in theprocess. It helped MPA staff to think about the reasonsbehind the establishment of the site, how theirmanagement activities can have an impact on bothbiodiversity and stakeholders, how even smallinsignificant management issues can affect the overallsuccess of an MPA, and it encouraged them to lookmore carefully at their management plans. All sixcomponents of the methodology were considereduseful, and all sites felt that the results of the assessmentsshould be incorporated into the review and revisionprocess for management plans and, in the case ofMnazi Bay, into the development of the firstmanagement plan.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Workbook for assessing Western Indian OceanManagement Effectiveness in MPAs in the WIO hasbeen developed, based on the workbook andmethodology developed for World Heritage sites andusing the World Commission on ProtectedAreas/Monitoring Effectiveness Task Force(WCPA/METF) Framework. This report provides theresults of testing the Workbook at eight pilot sites in threecountries:

Kenya: Kiunga Marine National Reserve Malindi Marine National Park & ReserveWatamu Marine National Park & Reserve Mombasa Marine National Park and ReserveKisite Marine National Park/Mpunguti Marine National Reserve

Tanzania: Mafia Marine Park, Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park

Seychelles: Cousin Island Special Reserve

The project was carried out under the oversight of theEastern African Group of Experts on Marine ProtectedAreas (GEMPA-EA) and is closely linked to the WCPA-Marine/WWF global initiative on Marine ProtectedAreas (MPA) management effectiveness. It wasfacilitated and co-ordinated by the IUCN astern AfricaRegional Programme (EARP) as one component of theNORAD funded WIO Marine Biodiversity ConservationProject, as a contribution to the implementation of theNairobi Convention work programme, and to theactivities carried out under the International Coral ReefAction Network (ICRAN).

The assessments involved the completion of a set ofworksheets or tables for the six components that METFhave identified as being fundamental to allassessments:

• Context: What is the starting point; what is the vision?

• Planning: How will the vision be reached?• Inputs: What resources are needed?• Process: What are the management actions?• Outputs: What was produced?• Outcomes: What was the impact?

The assessment is therefore broad, looking not only atimpacts but also at the effectiveness of themanagement process. It does not require thecollection of new data, unless that can be done quicklybut provides a 'snap-shot' of managementeffectiveness at a particular point in time, withrecommendations for improvement. It complements


viii Progress in the Development of a Partnership Programme for Implementing the Jakarta Mandate

The general impression from the assessments is thatsome MPAs are having a positive impact on some formsof biodiversity (corals, fish, turtles) but that the socio-economic impact is unknown. Despite a number ofmonitoring initiatives underway, the results of theassessments indicate that they are rarely adequate forhelping to measure the effectiveness of an MPA.Furthermore, results from monitoring programmes andresearch are often carried out by independentresearchers, and are not always made available to orinterpreted in an appropriate manner for MPA staff.Major efforts are needed to ensure that monitoring andresearch are designed and implemented to providethe information that is needed for management and toinvolve MPA staff and stakeholders.

Most sites reported that the assessments wereparticularly valuable in terms of improving relationshipswith stakeholders. In all cases, the stakeholdersexpressed great appreciation of the exercise. Theassessments also revealed that stakeholders are oftenvery unaware of the aims of the MPA, the legislationrelating to it, and how it operates. This indicates a needfor better communication with stakeholders andprovision of more targeted information. At the sametime the extent of stakeholder involvement inassessments was probably insufficient to ensure that theassessment was truly participatory. In some cases, thiswas due to lack of time, but it was also a result of thetraditional top-down approach to management that ischanging only now to consultation.

The concept of self-assessment is not yet wellunderstood or accepted in the participating countriesinvolved, particularly where government institutions areinvolved. This made it difficult to introduce themethodology and to ensure that assessments werecarried out in as transparent and objective manner aspossible. For many of the worksheets a higher rankingtended to be given than was warranted in this initialassessment.

Many sites felt that the assessment took up too muchtime in relation to their day-to-day managementactivities, providing further support for the need for asimpler method. Ensuring that assessments arerepeated in 2-3 years time will help to build capacitywithin MPA staff for analysis, although it is clear thatadditional specific training on data analysis,interpretation and report writing is urgently needed. Itwill be important for most MPAs starting off the processto have advice from individuals or organizations familiarwith the concept and methodology.

Conclusion and recommendations

The project has demonstrated that short (3-6 months),low-cost assessments can be useful. The more detailedWCPA-Marine approach is probably also useful if anMPA has the resources, the more detailed assessmentgiving a more rigorous assessment. Recommendationsare made for the pilot sites themselves, organizationssuch as IUCN and ICRAN that have been supportingthem, and also to the broader Western Indian OceanMPA community as follows:

• Undertake the activities needed to complete the initial assessments

• Ensure that recommendations are followed up at each site

• Revise the Workbook and expand the approach to other MPAs in the WIO

• Mainstream assessments into MPA management and ensure their sustainability

• Improve monitoring, research and access to relevant information so that assessments of management effectiveness can be based on good data and lead to adaptive management


1Progress in the Development of a Partnership Programme for Implementing the Jakarta Mandate

1.1. Background

The concept of using assessments and the results ofmonitoring programmes to adapt and improvemanagement of protected areas has come intobeing relatively recently but has evolved veryrapidly. The need for tools and guidelines toevaluate the ecological and managerial quality ofprotected areas was recognized at the 1992 WorldParks Congress in Venezuela, with the result that in1996 IUCN set up a Management Effectiveness TaskForce (METF) under the World Commission onProtected Areas (WCPA) to look at this issue. In 1999,IUCN and the World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF) helda joint workshop to review the growing number ofassessment methodologies being produced forprotected areas, and to exploreoptions for a more harmonizedapproach. Case studies fromCosta Rica, Brazil, Peru, Indiaand Australia and othercountries, largely related toterrestrial protected areas, werepresented.

Out of the discussions, and withadditional work by METF, came aframework methodology whichwas published in 2000 (Hockingset al., 2000a). This providesoverall guidance in thedevelopment of assessmentsystems and encourages basicstandards for assessment andreporting. IUCN’s globalprogramme on improvingprotected area managementthrough assessments now involves a wide range ofpartners including WWF, The Nature Conservacy(TNC), United nations Educational Scientific &Cultural Organisation(UNESCO), the World HeritageConvention, and the marine component of WCPA.Increasingly governments and civil society wantaccountability and evidence that setting asideareas of land and sea for biodiversity conservation isworthwhile. Accountability is also required at theinternational level, with institutions such as theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD) requestingparties to report on the status of their protectedareas.

1.2. The WIO Project

In November 2001, a workshop was organised byIUCN-EARP, with WIOMSA, in Zanzibar as an initialstep in raising awareness and developing anapproach to assessing MPA managementeffectiveness in the region. In June 2002, a moduleon assessing management effectiveness was held atthe Western Indian Ocean Marine ScienceAssociation/Coastal Zone Managemnt Centre(WIOMSA/CZMC) Regional Training Course in MPAManagement, St Lucia, South Africa. Thesepreliminary activities resulted in general agreementthat assessment of MPA management effectivenesswould be a valuable activity, although there are anumber of constraints, such as lack of funding,personnel and at present a lack of clarity on themethodologies being proposed.

The WCPA/METF Framework and, more specifically,the Workbook and methodology developed forassessing management effectiveness in WorldHeritage sites (Hockings et al., 2000 b and c) havebeen adapted for use in MPAs in the WIO(Mangubhai, 2003). The World Heritage initiative is afour-year UNF/UNESCO/IUCN ‘Enhancing OurHeritage’ project which includes five Eastern Africanpilot sites (of which two - Greater St Lucia WetlandParks and Aldabra Special Reserve - have marinecomponents).

This report concerns the testing of the methoddescribed in the Workbook at eight pilot sites in threecountries (Table 1). Although initially it was plannedto involve only six sites, eight subsequentlyparticipated (under the same budget and timeframework). The sites were selected to represent a

1. INTRODUCTION


2 Progress in the Development of a Partnership Programme for Implementing the Jakarta Mandate

range of types of MPA (different managementregimes, different degrees of accessibility andthreat, different degrees of experience andestablishment). Initially only two sites in Kenya wereselected but subsequently it was agreed that itwould be useful to include all the managed MPAs inthis country, as an opportunity for an assessment of anational system of MPAs. Diani Marine Reserve wasexcluded as it currently has no active management.Malindi Marine Park and Reserve was part of theinitial selection as it is an ICRAN demonstration site. Ithad been hoped to include Dar es Salaam MarineReserve System as this is also an ICRANdemonstration site, but there was insufficientcapacity and organisational framework at this MPAfor an assessment to be made. It had also beenhoped that Chumbe Coral Park, in Zanzibar, wouldparticipate as an example of an MPA managedthrough the private sector, but personnel changes atthis site made this impossible over the periodinvolved.

Table 1. Sites at which the methodology was tested

* The Reserve ajoins both the Malindi and Watamu Marine Parks (which also share one management plan).Logistically, and because there are two wardens, these sites were treated as two Park/Reserve sites.

The project was carried out under the oversight of theEastern African Group of Experts on Marine ProtectedAreas (GEMPA-EA) and is closely linked to the WCPA-Marine/WWF global initiative on MPA managementeffectiveness. It was facilitated and co-ordinated bythe IUCN EARP as one component of the NORADfunded WIO Marine Biodiversity Conservation Project (apartnership programme to assist WIO countries inimplementing the Jakarta Mandate), as a contributionto the implementation of the Nairobi Convention workprogramme, and to the activities carried out under theICRAN.

Marine Protected Area Date IUCN Sizeestablished Category sq km

1979

1968

1968

1968

1986

1978

1996

2000

1968/75

Kiunga Marine National Reserve

Malindi Marine National Park

Watamu Marine National Park

Malindi –Watamu Marine National Reserve*

Mombasa Marine National Park and

National Reserve

Kisite Marine National Park/Mpunguti Marine

National Reserve

Mafia Island Marine Park

Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park

Cousin Island Special Reserve

VI

II

II

VI

II/VI

11/VI

VI

Not yet assigned

Ia

250

6.3

10.0

245

10/200

28/11

822 of which 615 is

marine

650 of which 430 is

marine

0.28

KENYA

TANZANIA

SEYCHELLES

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Main principles involved

The framework guidelines prepared by WCPA/METF layout a set of principles to guide assessments, and theseare fundamental to the methodology used in the WIO.The key ones are:

• Information from an assessment should be usedto help improve MPA management, influence policy and raise awareness. The results are notfor making judgments of a negative or critical nature - the aim is to generate positive change,not to alienate stakeholders.

• There is no single method for an assessment – methods vary between sites depending on needs and the local situation.

• There are several levels at which assessments can be carried out. Relatively few MPAs in theWIO have the capacity or resources to carry out the most detailed level of assessment, which looks at whether the management objectives of an MPA have been achieved. Less detailed levels of assessment are nevertheless very helpful for identifying gaps and problems in management, helping to prioritise activities, and finding out what is needed to improve management.

• Assessments must be carried out in a participatory manner, involving managers, MPA staff, and all stakeholders.

• An assessment should include biological, social,cultural, economic, and management issues aswell as any others that influence the MPA.

The project is using an approach based on themethodology developed for use in World Heritage Sites.The assessments thus involve the completion of a set ofworksheets or tables for the six components that METFhave identified as being fundamental to allassessments:

• Context: What is the starting point; what is the vision?

• Planning: How will the vision be reached?• Inputs: What resources are needed?• Process: What are the management actions?• Outputs: What was produced?• Outcomes: What was the impact?

The assessment is therefore broad, looking not only atimpacts but also at the effectiveness of themanagement process. It does not require thecollection of new data, unless that can be donequickly. Rather, the assessment uses existing data, theaim being to provide a 'snap-shot' of managementeffectiveness at a particular point in time, withrecommendations for improvement. It complements


the approach that has been developed by WCPA-Marine (Pomeroy et al., 2002) and which is being testedat pilot sites around the world, of which Mafia IslandMarine Park (MIMP) is one.

An important aspect of the project was that it wasexperimental in nature. Sites were not provided with atried and tested method, but were asked to help in thedevelopment of a mechanism that, if successful, couldhelp to increase the success of WIO MPAs in meetingtheir objectives. The project involves new concepts forthe region and a ‘language’ that is still developing.Numerous methodologies are being developed, asshown during the 2003 World Parks Congress sessions onassessing management effectiveness. For those familiarwith coral reefs, the situation is perhaps analogous tothe development of coral reef monitoring methods 1-2decades ago. As a result, the terminology can beconfusing and some of the components poorly defined.This was made clear to participating sites, so that theycould understand their role in contributing to a broaderregional and global activity.

Although the overall framework is relevant to allprotected areas, specific components may not beapplicable at any one site. Thus, Mnazi Bay RuvumaEstuary Marine Park (MBREMP)did not complete theworksheet for assessing the management plan, as itdoes not have one yet. Similarly, several MPAs were notable to assess impacts/outcomes fully because of lackof relevant data, but the assessment helped them toidentify gaps in information and thus where monitoringprogrammes should be developed or improved.

2.2. Activities involved

2.2.1. Introductory workshop

An introductory workshop for the pilot sites participatingin the project was held in Malindi, Kenya, 7-9 April 2003.This was designed to ensure that representatives fromeach site understood the methodology and theprocess, and to help the sites make adaptations to suittheir particular situation. The workshop programme wasbased around the draft Workbook. Each component ofthe assessment was presented, and sample worksheetstested. There was also a presentation on theassessment underway at Mafia Island Marine Park usingthe WCPA-Marine methodology, and a brief update onplans for the WPC. The workshop was attended by 18people, with all sites represented apart from Mombasawhich was brought into the process later. Apart fromone person from the Seychelles, all participants at theworkshop subsequently played a major role in their siteassessments. Draft work plans were prepared for eachsite. Following the workshop, IUCN-EARP issuedcontracts to each site to cover the financing requiredfor carrying out the assessments (meeting costs, localtravel, communications etc).




members of the implementation (although the latterwas often the case, even if data were available). It waspointed out that this is particularly important whenidentifying ‘threats’ – e.g. it is easy to say that tourists aredamaging a reef, but that this might not in fact be true.Sites were also urged to provide the sources of theinformation (e.g. scientific papers, anecdote, reliableexperts), but no sites gave indications in their finalreports that this had been done.

The implementation teams were urged to be as specificas possible when filling in the sheets without going intotoo much detail. This was recognised as a difficultbalance, but teams were asked to remember that thepurpose of doing the worksheets was to identifyrecommendations for improving management, in thehope that this would help them to stay focused. Somesites compiled the worksheets in groups, but in othercases, the sheets were compiled by the MPA wardenalone which was perhaps not as good an arrangement.

The implementation team at Mnazi Bay Ruvuma EstuaryMarine Park had considerable difficulties with theworksheets, due to their lack of experience. Ascorecard developed by the World Bank for use inGlobal Environment Facility (GEF) projects related toMPAs was therefore provided during the consultant’sfinal visit, and assistance provided in initiating it. It wasfelt to be a better approach than some of the sheets inthe Workbook, but despite initial enthusiasm the formwas apparently not completed. It is discussed further insection 4.

2.2.4. Review of worksheets

A key part of the assessment methodology is the reviewby all MPA staff and stakeholders of the worksheets toreach consensus on the ratings given. It wasrecommended that a minimum of two workshopsshould be held, one with ‘managers’, includingmembers of the Management Committee or Board,and one with ‘stakeholders’. It was also suggested thatsmaller consultations would be necessary to ensure thateveryone’s views and opinions were included. Thereview component of the assessment is often difficult toschedule and it was recommended that meetings thatare already part of the annual work plan be used asmuch as possible. For example, the assessment couldbe made an agenda item at a scheduled meeting ofthe Management Committee. However, it appears thatthis rarely, if ever, happened.

The schedule of meetings was different for each site, asa result of different stakeholder groups and differentlevels of willingness and ability to participate. All sitesrealised the importance of input from the full range ofstakeholder groups, but in many cases they haddifficulty organising the necessary meetings andconsultations. In Kenya, the sites had two joint meetings

2.2.2. Implementation teams

The first step in the assessment was for each site to setup a small ‘implementation team’ to lead theassessment, preferably comprising core technical staffand key stakeholders; it was suggested that if thecapacity of the MPA was very limited a consultantmight be necessary. The composition of the teamsvaried between sites:

• Watamu included, in addition to KWS staff, representatives from Non-Governmental organisations (NGOs) and Community Based Organisations(CBOs) and a Japanese International Corporation Agency (JICA) volunteer;

• Malindi had a similar team to Watamu but also used students and included a representative ofthe boat operators

• Kiunga had a team comprising Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) staff and WWF representatives (WWF being the main partner organisation)

• Mombasa’s team comprised KWS staff and an honorary warden

• Kisite included, with the KWS staff, the District Fishery Officer, an Honorary Warden (local businessman), and a youth group chairperson who had been involved in fisheries data collection in the MPA

• The teams for the two Tanzanian sites comprised entirely personnel from the MPAs

• Cousin Island used six staff members from the NGO that manages the MPA, including the Warden, plus a consultant who had previously worked for the NGO

The Kenyan sites established a ‘national co-ordinatingteam’ with two senior members of KWS who providedtechnical support as well as administrative and logisticalassistance to all the sites. In particular, they organizeda joint meeting of the MPAs to compile the NationalContext worksheet, helped to develop a commonmethod for the inputs worksheet, and organized twomeetings of the sites involved at which progress with theassessments were discussed. The Marine Parks andReserves Unit in Tanzania allocated a member of staff toco-ordinate the assessments for the two Marine Parks,but information has not been made available toindicate what activities were carried out.

2.2.3. Compilation of worksheets

The sites were expected to use existing reports andother literature, or interviews and discussions. In Kenya,an annotated bibliography of references and researchreports relevant to all sites was provided by KWS to allthe sites. Sites were urged to base the worksheets onactual facts and results of research, surveys andmonitoring programmes, rather than on the opinions of



with the national co-ordinators (involving KWS staffonly). Mombasa also had one workshop with a mixedgroup of stakeholders; Kisite had a series of meetingswith the different stakeholder groups as it was felt thatseparating the groups was more effective in gettingopinions from them; and Malindi and Watamu had ajoint initial stakeholder workshop and then individualdiscussions between the Warden and local groups.

Some sites had one-on-one sessions with key individualswho did not have time to attend a long multi-stakeholder meeting, such as hoteliers and governmentofficials. For example, Cousin Islandheld no workshops with stakeholdersbut instead used targeted interviewswith individual stakeholders, using aspecially prepared questionnaire. TheKenyan sites also developed aquestionnaire, at the initiative of thewardens of Watamu and Malindi,based on the worksheets, for thosestakeholders who would haveproblems understanding theworksheets (e.g. fishers and localboat operators), from the point of fewof language and the tabular format.This was subsequently also used bythe Tanzanian sites, and is discussedfurther in Section 4 in relation to theproposed review of the Workbook.

2.2.5. Preparation ofassessment report

Once the sheets are complete, the methodologyrequires that an assessment report is prepared, givingresults, comments on the methodology, andrecommendations for improving management,monitoring or other aspects at the MPA. As requested,most sites produced an interim report so that progresscould be reviewed, comments provided by thetechnical consultant, and preliminary results from theassessments included in the presentation made atWorld Parks Congress (WPC). All sites then produced afinal report. These varied considerably in quality. Thereport for Cousin Island is of high quality, reflecting theexperience and technical competence of the NGOmanaging this MPA.

The worksheets and final reports for the Kenyan andTanzanian sites were of a lower quality and did notalways reflect the quality of the assessment (e.g. theassessment at Kisite was carried out much moreeffectively than is apparent from the report). The betterones reflected the greater technical and analyticalabilities and writing and English language skills at certainsites e.g. Malindi and Mafia. Given that these were pilotassessments, this is perhaps of not too great concern,although it does mean that at some sites the lack of

clarity in the final report will make it difficult to follow-uprecommendations and to compare future assessmentswith this initial assessment. In many cases, theinformation provided and the recommendationsidentified are too superficial or generalised to be usefulin management, and there has been little analysis orinterpretation of the completed worksheets. This ispartly because several sites had difficulty inunderstanding the need to be specific and clear,without going into too much detail, and partly becausethe worksheet format was too complex as discussed inSection 4.

Ideally, all the Kenyan and Tanzanian reports should beedited for clarity, factual accuracy, and consistency (inseveral cases there are conflicting statements), and therecommendations and results should be clearlysummarised. Several sites did not initially follow therecommended format for the final report (see section4). Some reports are missing pages or worksheets (inone case, two biodiversity outcome tables arepresented with different information results but there isno socio-economic outcome table). Finally, in somecases the interim report was submitted as the finalreport, and comments provided by the consultant werenot incorporated. In particular, it appears that the initialenergy and enthusiasm with which the Kenyan sitesaddressed the assessment died out in the final twomonths. This may have been linked to the fact that thetwo national co-ordinators were leaving at this time asa result of job changes.

2.3. Technical assistance provided

In Kenya, the consultant participated in the jointMalindi-Watamu workshop attended by representativesfrom a range of stakeholder groups from both MPAs.The site visit to Kiunga had to be cancelled due tologistical problems. At Kisite, the consultant attended a



stakeholder workshop for fishers. A both sites visited,time was spent with the Wardens and other key staffclarifying the worksheets and methodology. Theconsultant also attended two joint meetings of all sites(although Kiunga was absent from the first and Kisitefrom the second) with the national KWS co-ordinatingteam in Mombasa. The first meeting proved very usefulin harmonising the methodology between sites andagreeing on approaches; it was also attended by stafffrom IUCN-EARP.

As mentioned above, the Tanzanian sites decided theywould prefer to initiate the assessment with trainingsessions. The Mafia training involved MPA personnelonly and so allowed each worksheet to be discussed inconsiderable detail. At MBREMP, the training sessionincluded several District officers and representatives oftwo NGOs. Both sessions were used to ensure that theworksheet compilation had started, and wereconsidered useful by the MPAs. The consultant also metwith key staff in the Marine Parks and Reserves Unit inDar es Salaam to discuss co-ordination of theassessments at the two Tanzanian sites. These meetingsdid not result in any visible improvement in co-ordination activities, although the assessment report forMafia mentions that a joint meeting of the two sites washeld.

Between the site visits, comments and feedback on thedraft worksheets were provided, and briefing notes onparticular issues were sent to the sites. However,problems with communications and lack of experienceof MPA staff in reading such materials meant that thesewere not always an effective means of communication.Comments sent on the worksheets were often not usedin subsequent drafts, or until the consultant made afurther visit in person. For Kenya and Tanzania, the sitevisits and meetings with the wardens were definitely themost effective approaches and this form of technicalassistance should be given more attention in any futureassessments.

There was no request from Cousin Island for theconsultant to visit or participate directly in theassessment, but an informal discussion was held withone member of the implementation team in Nairobi,part way through the assessment, and comments wereprovided on part of the interim report

3. RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENTS

All sites involved were extremely positive about theprocess. The following results were common to many ofthe sites:

• Improved understanding by MPA staff andstakeholders of the issues involved in management ofthe site and of why it was protected. Many of the MPAstaff at the Kenyan and Tanzanian sites did not fullyunderstand the reasons why their MPAs had beenestablished – i.e. the protected area values and thesignificance of the sites for biodiversity. There wasrelatively little knowledge of species on the IUCN RedList, of the categories for globally threatened species orof programmes such as Birdlife’s Important Bird Areasinitiative. For these MPAs, the biodiversity objectives inthe management plans are very broad. The selection ofappropriate management targets was useful to focusthinking on why the MPA had been set up. It wassuggested that each MPA should compare themanagement targets they had selected with thoseselected by other MPAs in their country (see table 2 forexample of Kenya). The MPAs in these countries havefairly comprehensive social, economic, and culturalobjectives that are more specific, and managementtargets could more easily be selected that relateddirectly to them.

• Interventions for improved management wererecommended at all sites and many of these could beimplemented immediately, as they often require little orno new funding

• The planning component helped sites to understandthat management plans are dynamic and must bemodified and revised to suit changing conditions.

• The assessment of national context showed thatinternational conventions and treaties have very littlerelevance at the site level. Staff of the Kenyan andTanzanian MPAs were not familiar with the relevantconventions and the roles that these play. NatureSeychelles pointed out that they do not bring anyobvious benefits (although they might be expected toincrease funding) and that participation in meetings isrestricted to certain government officials who rarelyprovide feedback at the site level.

• For all sites, except for Cousin Island for some of itsbiodiversity targets, data were lacking to assessoutcomes. This is despite the long existence of some ofthe MPAs and the considerable investment inmonitoring activities in the region, demonstrating thatthese have generally not been well designed, or thatmonitoring information is not returning to the MPAs.



Table 2. Management targets selected by pilot sites in Kenya

3.1. Kenya

Kenya has a fairly unified network of MPAs,administered by the Kenya Wildlife Service. The siteshave been established for a relatively long period oftime (from 17 to 35 years). The total area of the MPA atKisite Marine National Park and Marine National Reserveis only 39 sq km, but all the other sites are responsible formanagement of some 200 sq km or more of marinewaters. Apart from a few small, uninhabited islands,there are no terrestrial areas within the boundaries(which stop at high water mark), although there is a 100ft wide buffer zone at some of the sites. However, thesites vary enormously in terms of direct human pressure,from Mombasa which lies immediately off a majorurban area and tourism centre, to Kiunga located in theremote northern area bordering Somalia (although anestimated 1000 resident and 1000 migrant fishers use thisreserve). All sites, however, including those that areremote from urban developments, are used by largenumbers of fishers. All the sites have management plansthat run from 1999/2000 to 2004/5 and a wellestablished management structure with trained staffand operational procedures. Staff numbers arerelatively high compared with MPAs in other countries,most sites having 20-30 personnel. Sites vary in the

amount of technical assistance that they receive. Mosthave had intermittent assistance through projects, butKiunga has had long-term support through WWF’sKiunga Marine National Reserve Conservation andDevelopment Project since 1996.

Some of the main outcomes of theassessments are:

1. The assessments at each site provided someindication that management was being effective tosome extent in terms of biodiversity protection. Forexample, fish and reef health within some of the MarineParks (no-fishing areas) are better than in the Reserves(which have less active management) or outside theMPAs, based on data gathered by the two researchorganisations Coral Reef Conservation Project (CRCP)and Coral Reef Degradation of the Indian Ocean(CORDIO) that carry out research and monitoring in theKenyan MPAs in association with KWS. At Malindi fishabundance has increased in the Marine Park, but coralhealth and turtle numbers have declined. The textsummary of the Kiunga assessment states that turtlenumbers have increased, but the work table does notshow this information. Overall, it is likely that there isconsiderably more data on corals, fish and turtles thanwas used in the assessments.

Target Mombasa Kisite Malindi Watamu KiungaBiodiversityCorals/Reefs X X X X XBeach Sea grassMangrovesTurtlesMarine mammals*BirdsFishCoconut Crabs Other naturalCurrentsLandscapeIslands Socio economicFisheriesTourism/eco-tourismResearchEducation/awarenessIncome generationCultural/historical

* Mombasa specifies dolphins, Kiunga specifies dugong



For most management targets, there is insufficient, orinappropriately designed, monitoring to provide thetype of data that are need to assess the impact ofmanagement. Where there are appropriate monitoringand research results, this information is often not easilyavailable to MPA managers and staff (althoughindependent discussions with some of the researchersinvolved suggests that data are made available). Inany case, this highlights the need for more structuredand sustainable monitoring programmes, usingmethods that MPA staff can participate in, andmechanisms to ensure that copies of data and resultsare kept at each MPA site, and are understood andavailable to all MPA staff. Monitoring programmesneed to take into account a broader range of themanagement targets involved if KWS is to be able todemonstrate the role of MPAs in biodiversity protectionand sustainable development, and thus increasepolitical commitment for MPA management. Evenwhere monitoring has been initiated (e.g. theReefcheck method has recently been introduced atKWS) or mechanisms exist to discuss research needs(e.g. joint meetings between KWS and the KenyaMarine and Fisheries Research Institute), MPA staff donot seem to have fully understood the relevance ofthese activities in terms of assessing managementeffectiveness and most sites did not mention theexistence of these initiatives. The assessment ofMombasa Marine Park did not make full use of a paperon effectiveness at this site prepared earlier by a KWSstaff member (Muthiga, 2001). Similarly, Kiunga did notappear to use information from past WWF reviews andevaluations in its assessment.

2. The important role of local communities and otherstakeholders was highlighted by the assessment. To thesurprise of some KWS staff, fishers (the source of many ofthe conflicts) showed considerable support for the

Marine Reserves (though not the Marine Parks), and atKisite they even recommended increasing the size ofthe Reserve. Kisite appears to have particularly goodrelationships with the majority of its stakeholder groups(primarily fishing communities and boat operators, withonly about three major tourism operators). Mombasahas carried out a lot of work with its stakeholders, but stilldoes not have effective involvement of the tourismindustry, demonstrated by the fact that tour operatorsand hoteliers did not attend the assessment workshops.The assessment for Mombasa recommends that astakeholder forum be set up for this MPA.

3. The management plans were all prepared at thesame time to the same model and are due for revisionin 2005 or 2006, with revision every 5 years. Theassessment results could be used in the revision, and itwas suggested that this initial assessment could beconsidered as the ‘mid-term’ review of themanagement plans. Although all the sites rated theadequacy of their plans very highly (perhaps becausethis part of the assessment was carried out with the KWSstaff involved in the preparation of the plans), it wouldbe worth considering some amendments and newapproaches. For example, the current plans are basedon an analysis of issues at the time of their preparation(i.e. they are issue driven) rather than on an analysis ofhow the objectives for each site might be reached (i.e.objective or outcome driven). Current thinking is thatthe latter approach is more effective in that it lays out astrategy for reaching the overall aim of the MPA. Indiscussions, people thought this approach might bebetter and that it should perhaps be when the plans are

revised. The revised plans should also lay outa clear process and schedule for the 5 yearlyreview. Malindi and Watamu currently have ajoint management plan, as the Reservecomponent is common to both sites. Theinformation gathered during the assessmentindicates that there are sufficient differencesat each site to make separate plansnecessary, with some form of co-ordinatingmechanism to ensure joint management ofthe Marine Reserve. As mentioned above, allMPAs in Kenya have the same broadcategories of objectives (biodiversityprotection, sustainable resources use,research, and awareness and education), butthere are specific differences between thesites that were identified through themanagement targets. These should bebrought out more clearly in the revised

management plans.

4. The management plans and objectives do notdistinguish clearly between the Parks and the Reserves,



although these have been set up for different purposes.The assessment provided an opportunity to look morecarefully at the management needs of each and theteams were asked to be clear in the worksheets as towhether they were referring to the MPA area as a wholeor to the reserve or Park. The design assessment for theMalindi/Watamu MPAs, and the assessment ofadequacy of their joint management plan revealedpositive steps that could be taken to clarify theresponsibilities of these MPAs in relation to their sharedresponsibility for the Marine Reserve. The assessment forMombasa recommended that the Reserve should bezoned for different activities (e.g. watersports, fishing) toreduce conflict and it is understood that thisrecommendation is also in the management plan. Theboundaries of the Park in relation to the Reservereportedly changed early on the life of this MPA area;this was not referred to in the assessment although itwould be interesting to know if the changes had beensatisfactory. The Mombasa assessment also points outthe difficulty of patrolling the Reserve which, unlikeother Kenyan MPAs, extends beyond the reef crest intoopen water; it is thought that only about 15 sq km of thetotal 200 sq km Reserve is used by fishermen. Theassessment of Kisite recommended an increase in thesize of the Reserve south to the Tanzanian border, butrevealed lack of consensus as to whether the Parkcomponent is too large or too small.

5. Although in general the national context for MPAs issupportive in Kenya in terms of political will, theassessment of this component (done as a joint activityby all sites together) indicates a number of issues thatneed resolving. MPAs are designated under the WildlifeAct which is more strongly oriented towards terrestrialprotected areas. It is being revised, which presents anideal opportunity for ensuring that the necessarychanges are made to cover the needs of MPAs, but it isnot clear that there is an adequate process for this.Linked with this is the fact that although the MPAsreceive good support from the KWS Coast office inMombasa, they feel that there is little interest in theiractivities from Headquarters in Nairobi, with few visitsfrom senior management. This was emphasised by thefact that senior KWS personnel did not play any part inthe assessments. In terms of relationships with othergovernment departments, there is a need to clarify andharmonise responsibilities in relation to Fisheries(responsible for fisheries enforcement in the Reserves)and Forestry (responsible for mangrove management),and to improve collaboration with Tourism and with theCoast Development Authority. Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOUs) have been developed withFisheries and Forestry Departments to lay out the variousroles of the agencies in relation to MPAs, and theseneed to be implemented and additional ones drawnup with other government departments as appropriate.

6. All sites rated themselves fairly highly in thecomponents relating to implementation ofmanagement plans (outputs) and adequacy of themanagement process (process), although theworksheets were not always very clearly filled in. Threeof the sites analysed the extent to which actionsidentified in the management plan had beencompleted or were underway. There is a problem withthe way that the % have been calculated, but theresults give a rough idea of progress: for Malindi, 30% ofthe actions have been completed; for Watamu, 20%have been completed; and for Mombasa, nonealthough 60% are underway or making good progress.

7. All the sites had problems doing the inputassessment. The national co-ordinators had devised atable to show the unit cost of items such as one day’swork by a ranger and an officer, and various pieces ofequipment such as vehicles and boats. The sites hadused this to analyse funding requirements for differentactivities. However, most of them did not provide ananalysis of the results or explain clearly how the figureswere calculated. The figures were also not put intocontext with the annual government subvention toeach site the Annual Income Expenditure (‘A.I.E.’), therevenue that is earned through the Marine Parks (whichis returned to central government), and other sources offunding, for example donors. The worksheets regularlycite inadequate funding as a cause of poormanagement.



Malindi analysed the inputs and found that only about50% of the funds required are available, even thoughfunding additional to the A.I.E had been obtainedthrough the KWS/Netherlands Wetlands Training andConservation Programme, and ICRAN. At this MPA,revenue from entrance fees for the Marine Park hadincreased by 28% between 2000 (6.7 mill Ksh) and 2003(8.6 mill Ksh) but the AIE has gone down over the sameperiod from 2.4 mill Ksh to 2 mill Ksh. Figures for Watamuare not clear in the report, but the narrative text statesthat the AIE had gone down by 35-40%. In Mombasa,revenue more than doubled between 1998 and 2000(from just over 5 mill Ksh to over 10 mill Ksh) but droppedto less than 9 mill Ksh in 2002. The AIE for Mombasa hassteadily increased from just over 1 mill Ksh in 1998 to over3.5 mill Ksh in 2003, but is nevetheless much less than therevenue taken by the Park. There seems to be no veryclear pattern among the MPAs in trends in revenue andAIE (assuming the figures are correct), but at allsites the AIE is much less than the revenuegenerated. Although the assessments do not statethis, there is clearly no major incentive to worktowards increasing visitation as the increasedrevenue does not feed back into increased fundsfrom central government for management, asidentified in an earlier economic analysis of KisiteMarine Park (Emerton and Tessema, 2001).

8. Two of the MPA areas, Kiunga and Malindi-Watamu, are designated as Biosphere Reserves.However, the assessments for the sites did notaddress the issue of whether the Biospheredesignation has provided added value to the sites,or whether management is meeting the specificobjectives of the biosphere designation.

3.2. Tanzania

Mafia Island and Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma EstuaryMarine Parks are both relatively large multiple-usemarine parks (Mafia Island is 822 sq km in total ofwhich 615 sq km is marine; Mnazi Bay is 650 sq kmin total of which c. 430 sq km is marine). Both have largenumbers of people living within them (Mafia has 11villages within the park boundaries and 15,000-18,000people dependent on it; Mnazi Bay has 12 villageswithin its boundaries and some 30,000 peopledependent on it), and both have considerablepotential economic importance in terms of futuretourism and possible mineral exploitation (highly likely inthe case of Mnazi Bay). One site is an offshore island(Mafia), the other an enclosed bay (Mnazi Bay) andextensive mangrove system (Ruvuma Estuary); theseaspects of the design would be interesting to look at,but were not covered in the assessment. The two sitesare at very different stages of development. Mafia

Island Marine Park has nearly ten years of experience,having been gazetted since 1994. Having hadtechnical assistance from WWF since the beginning, itnow has a management plan, due for a mid-termreview now (with a full review 5 years after the plan hasbeen approved, i.e. in 2005). MBREMP was gazetted in2000 and its management plan is still in the earlypreparation stages. Both are managed by the MarineParks and Reserves Unit (MPRU) which, compared toKWS, has relatively little experience and low capacity.

The assessment revealed the lack of experience andcapacity at MBREMP, but this is being addressedthrough the UNDP/GEF project currently underway andthe site is keen to repeat the assessments on a regularbasis. Mafia’s report was of a higher quality than theother Tanzanian and Kenyan reports, reflecting thegreater experience and skills of the staff, probably due

to the the long period of technical assistance fromWWF, and because it has been involved in the globalWCPA assessment. Even so, it tended to make verygeneral statements in both the worksheets and thesummary text that will make it difficult to follow uprecommendations, and did not appear to make verymuch use of previous evaluations and reviews.Although Mafia is also a pilot site for the WCPA-Marineproject to test indicators, the assessment report doesnot make any detailed reference to this. It is to behoped that the two methods could be compared in thenear future. Mafia also did not provide an assessmentof its zoning scheme which would have been useful,particularly since Mnazi Bay Ruvuma Estuary will bedeveloping a zoning scheme in the near future.



Table 3. Expenditure of financial inputs by management target in Mafia Island MarinePark (dates not known but presumed to be 2002)

3. In terms of capacity, Mafia has a full complement ofstaff (about 19 in total, with an additional 6 personnelwhose salaries are covered by WWF), although the parkpersonnel consider they need more rangers and acommunications officer. In contrast MBREMP only has12 staff of which three are drivers. It used theassessment as a capacity building exercise to helpidentify the issues to be taken into consideration in thepreparation of the management plan. Many of therecommendations of the assessment (e.g. the need fora Park office within the MPA) are among the activitiesto be carried out with the support of the GEF project.The training workshop held at the beginning of theassessment was important in helping participantsunderstand better the purpose of the Park, how it isbeing set up, and their potential roles in it.

4. Both assessments produced useful recommendationsin relation to stakeholders. The Tanzanian MPAlegislation provides a better basis for MPA establishmentand management than the current Kenyan legislationwith clearly defined mechanisms for stakeholder inputto management through village committees and ahigher level Advisory Committee. However, theassessment revealed that implementing the fullparticipation intended in the law is difficult. At Mafia,local communities are the biggest stakeholder groupand are represented on the Advisory Committee. The11 villages in the park have liaison committees andstakeholder engagement is largely good, but whetherthere is a major flow of economic benefits to thesecommunities from the Park, as stated in the assessment,could be questioned. The engagement of the hoteliersand fish traders (i.e. the private sector) is however lessgood. At MBREMP, more attention must be paid toproviding information on the purpose of the park(management targets), and the proposed regulations.There should be further clarification of the boundary,and the rationale of including of certain villages andnot others. This is a complex issue since some villageswish to be included because of perceived benefits fromthe MPA. The initial inclusion of a large area of land(twice the size of the marine area) was probably toensure that all land-based impacts on the marineenvironment would be addressed. However, it willcreate a number of management problems, as thepark staff are already discovering. As with other sites,both Mafia and MBREMP tended to omit mention ofconflicts and difficult issues with stakeholders, which is

Management Targets US$ %Biodiversity 92,400 13Socio-economic 240,370 34Administration 369,784 53Total 702,554

Some of the main outcomes of the

assessments are:

1. Like the Kenyan MPAs, both the Tanzanian MPAshave the same general objectives as laid out in thelegislation, but the management targets are slightlydifferent for each site. The assessment suggests thatbiodiversity outcomes are starting to be met at Mafia.The data gathered under the WCPA-Marine project onfocal species abundance was used and showed thatcoral health has improved in some areas (e.g. CholeBay) but declined on reefs affected by the 1998bleaching (e.g. Tutia Reef); though butterfly fishabundance had increased. There has also been inincrease between 2001 and 2003 in the number ofturtles nesting and the number of eggs hatching, and adecrease in turtle poaching. There are some signs ofmangrove regeneration. For other managementtargets however, as for the Kenyan MPAs, there are nodata by which to assess changes. Data on socio-economic parameters is not available to show anychanges yet, although in due course fish and octopuscatch data may help to show whether there have beenimprovements.

2. The inputs assessment at Mafia showed the size ofdonor contributions in relation to government support(c. 80% donors, 20% government), which emphasisesthe need for this MPA (like others) to find ways offinancing itself. The Government contribution goes onsalaries and recurrent expenditures, with donor fundingused to cover implementation of activities in themanagement plan. Inputs were analysed differentlyfrom the Kenyan sites (illustrating that there needs to bea more clearly explained method for this component)and a breakdown of actual expenditures bymanagement target was provided. Although there isno summary of this in the report itself, the figures whenanalysed show that a rather small proportion of theoverall financing is spent on the biodiversitymanagement targets as shown in Table 3.

The high figure for administration is partly accounted forby the fact that surveillance has been included in thiscategory (US$126,600 or about one third of the totalcost of administration), as well as ‘support to villages’.



one of the problems of the self-assessment approachled by the MPA authority.

Furthermore, although the assessments did not addressthis directly, the role of the Districts in the managementof Marine Parks has yet to be fully clarified, given thatunder decentralisation they are technically responsiblefor management of natural resources. At MBREMP,there are plans to discuss this through the preparatorywork for the management plan.

5. Mafia was able to carry out a detailed outputsassessment since its Annual Action Plans are baseddirectly on the Management Plan. In the year 2002, outof 61 actions planned, 26% were completed, 31% inprogress and meeting their targets, 19% ongoing (i.e.recurrent such as patrolling), 18% at the planning stageand 5% not started. Overall performance was rated at70%. The annual progress report prepared for the Boardof Trustees is a good measure of outputs.

3.3. Seychelles

Seychelles has many different types MPAs,several of which have been established for along time. They include the Marine Parkswhich are government managed MPAs underthe Marine Parks Authority, several naturereserves managed by NGOs, and others withsubstantial input from the private sector.Cousin Island Special Reserve is a long-established protected area (30 years sincedesignation), managed by the NGO NatureSeychelles with well trained staff andsubstantial investment in skilled managementand scientific expertise. The reserve staff areemployees of the NGO and the reservemanagement is part of its overall workprogramme. There is no direct involvement ofthe government. The island, 28 ha in size, wasdesignated as a nature reserve initially to protectendemic land birds and important breeding colonies ofseabirds and thus was originally entirely terrestrial. In1975, it was made a Special Reserve and protectionwas extended to 400 m offshore all round the island,and it now protects important sea turtle populationsand a rich fringing coral reef.

Initially there was some reluctance on the part ofNature Seychelles to participate, as it was perceivedthat the methodology was not oriented towardsprotected areas that were already ‘up-and-running’.However, once the process was initiated, theyconsidered it a very useful exercise. The final report is ofa high quality, indicating the considerable skills andexperience of the NGO managing this site.

The management plan has evolved progressively sincethe first one in 1975 (it has been revised five times) andwas the focus of the assessment. The reserve has 8

objectives - five relating to biodiversity protection, oneon education and public awareness (includingresearch) and two on governance and managementprocesses. The conservation objectives takeprecedence in any situation where there is a conflict ofinterest.

The key outcomes of this assessment are:

1. The protected area is well run and is largely achievingits biodiversity and socio-economic objectives. Statusand trends are known for the land and seabirds, turtlesand coral species diversity and % cover, and are good.Nesting turtles have increased by 300% in 30 years.Corals have been damaged by the bleaching event in1998, but otherwise reef health is good. However thereis no monitoring of plants, other vertebrates,invertebrates, and many aspects of the marineenvironment.

2. The management plan is largely adequate – NatureSeychelles recognises the dynamic nature of plans andthe need to revise them as protected area philosophyand society itself changes over time; the plan is closelylinked to the overall work plan for the NGO. It used themanagement plan extensively for the assessment, andthe results will be used in the revision of the plan, due in2004. The plan does not prioritise actions intentionally, asexperience has shown that priorities defined over aperiod of 5 or more years tend not to be realistic.Priorities are therefore set at the level of the annual workplan. The main concern is that the marine environmentis insufficiently addressed in the plan: there is littlemonitoring or survey work of marine habitats; no studieson the impact of the no-take area on fisheries outsidethe MPA boundary; and no other marine managementactivities. Socio-economic issues are also under-emphasised in the plan.



3. Since the Reserve encompasses the entire island andsurrounding waters, the design is considered adequatealthough it is recognised that there would be value inco-ordinated, integrated management with adjacentislands (Cousine and Aride) and a proposal has beendrawn up to address this. The lack of a buffer zonemeans that illegal activities may occur right up to theedge of the reserve, an issue that is now being lookedat.

4. The main threat is considered to be climate change,as it is felt that most human activities that might pose athreat are under control, although there remains aserious risk of introduction of alien species.

5. The national context is generally supportive (over 45%of the land area in the Seychelles is protected) butNature Seychelles consider that the governmentprovides insufficient financial support. The inputsassessment confirmed, for Nature Seychelles, that itsfunding base is weak as it is largely dependent on thelanding fees of visitors and any down turn in tourism willthus have a major negative impact.

6. The assessment identified the need for developmentof a different relationship with stakeholders. NatureSeychelles does not consider that it has stakeholders inthe sense that the Kenyan and Tanzanian MPAs clearlyfeel they do, since it has no fishers or other communitieswhose livelihoods are impacted by the protected area.Instead, it sees itself having a ‘professional’ relationshipwith the three government agencies that it interactswith (Ministries of Environment and Transport, Tourismand Education) and the police, and a ‘business’relationship with the tourism operators who use theisland. There is no Advisory Body or formal opportunityfor stakeholders to contribute to management issues,and Nature Seychelles feels strongly that they shouldnot do so, in case they over-ride the conservationobjectives of the Reserve. However the assessmentrevealed that local communities would like moreopportunities to visit the protected area; that thereshould be clearer demarcation of the boundaries; thatlocal enforcement agencies would like greaterpublicity in the media of the regulations relating to theprotected area; and that tourism operators andgovernment agencies would like more informationabout the protected area. This suggests indicate thatthe stakeholders could play a useful advisory role as inother MPAs; indeed the tourism operators welcomedthe assessment as a rare opportunity for feedback. Arecommendation was made that a study should becarried out to clearly define their roles and needs.

7. The outputs analysis was based on the ‘StrategicActions’ component of the management plan. Theanalysis showed that 36% of the actions were routinemanagement activities (a new category introduced bythis site), 43% were completed or making significantprogress, 10% were planned and 1% had not started.

4. PROPOSED REVISIONS OFWORKBOOK

The methodology was too complex for some of theMPAs in Kenya and Tanzania, particularly for thosewhere MPA staff lack skills in use of computers (theworksheet format, in Word tables, was not user-friendlyfor many of those involved), in report writing, and inanalysis of data and situations. The implementationteam at the newly established Mnazi Bay RuvumaEstuary Marine Park had particular difficultiesunderstanding the worksheets and following theinstructions. This was presumably due to lack ofexperience in using guidelines and manuals, ininterpreting written comments sent by e-mail, in makingthe judgements required in the assessment, and inreporting on the results. This indicates that for newlyestablished MPAs, or new and inexperienced MPApersonnel, a different approach is needed with theprovision of considerably more on-the-ground technicalsupport. Alternatively, fairly major changes should bemade to the Workbook, simplifying the language andtables and making them easier to use. However, theWorkbook was almost too simple for the moreexperienced managers at Cousin Island in Seychelles,and at sites like these consideration should be given tousing the WCPA-Marine approach.

The following recommendations are for revision of theWorkbook. A few minor changes were made for theversion that was made available at the World ParksCongress, but a fuller revision should be undertaken.The sites were asked to provide comments on theWorkbook and methodology, but few did so in anydetail. However, the discussions held with theconsultant, and the results obtained helped to show thetypes of revision that are needed.

Some specific capacity building needs were identifiedthrough the assessment. This was the only site torecognise that some of the capacity needs could bemet through improved management of existing staffresources. The need was identified for a central co-ordinating body for protected areas in Seychelles thatwould ensure co-ordination between sites, facilitate thedevelopment of protected area policies, and help todefine of roles of the different types of managementagencies such as NGOs.

It has not yet been possible to compare the results withthe Aldabra assessment (SIF, 2002), but this should bedone – the two assessments will give a good view ofhow MPA management is progressing in the Seychelles.



4.1. Introduction

The analogy of a journey by dala-dala or matatu(public bus) was useful on many occasions and couldbe explained in a box in the introduction so that othertrainers can use of it. An MPA that is not beingmanaged effectively is compared with a bad busjourney (poorly defined management targets = lack ofunderstanding of destination of the bus; unsupportivenational context = poor roads, lack of governmentsupport for the bus company etc; inappropriate design= bus too small for number of passengers; insufficientinputs = lack of fuel; outputs = number of passengerscarried, ticket revenue generated, time taken;outcomes = arrival at correct destination with happypassengers).

4.2. Instructions on how to carry out anassessment

At some sites, MPA staff appeared to complete theworksheets themselves. Greater emphasis on theparticipatory approach in future assessments wouldimprove objectivity. There was a tendency for MPAstaff to give higher (better) ratings than were perhapsappropriate (the consultant was familiar with severalsites in Kenya and Tanzania and thus able to act as anobjective observer). The tendency to give high ratings isunderstandable where MPA staff are governmentofficers and thus probably unwilling to be seen to becritical of processes and management practicesestablished by senior personnel. This also emphasisesthe importance of ensuring that the worksheets arereviewed by all stakeholders.

Several sites did not fully use existing data andinformation sources. If they were used, they were notcorrectly referenced and at some sites, the need for thiswas not understood, as well as the need to distinguishbetween opinion, anecdotal information, and scientificdata. In some cases this was due to lack of experienceof those involved in using data and information foranalysis and interpretation, and they tended to use theirown personal knowledge. KWS had prepared abibliography of references relevant to all the MPAs inthe country which was a laudable effort, but since itdoes not indicate which references are relevant towhich sites it is difficult to use. Also, the sites did notnecessarily have access to the reports and paperslisted. The Workbook could perhaps explain moreclearly how information can be obtained and how itshould be used and cited.

Sites should be asked to clarify what period of timeeach worksheet refers to e.g. one or more recent years;or the whole period since the park was established. Thisis particularly important for outputs, for which data mayonly be available on a yearly basis; outcomes, incontrast, may involve full data sets over several years.

Where MPAs are already involved in a very closelyrelated activity, or are producing a very similar report, itwas suggested that they should make use of this in theassessment in order to avoid duplicating work. Few sitesdid this, even though several of them had recentlyundergone donor evaluations. This would help to makeregular assessment a more sustainable activity andshould be stressed in the Workbook.

4.3. Context assessment4.3.1. Management targets

Many sites had difficulty translating the rather generallyworded objectives in their management plans intomanagement targets, and of understanding theconcept – that a general objective could be brokendown into more specific measurable ‘targets’, basedon what is particular at the site in question. Theexception was Cousin Island in Seychelles whichalready has targets with measurable indicators. Furtherexplanation of the relationship between targets andobjectives is required, and it should be made clear thatnumerical, measurable targets are not necessarilyrequired for simple assessment; in fact a better wordthan ‘target’ is probably needed. Nature Seychellesinserted an additional column into the table to showthe MPA objectives in relation to the managementtargets (in the Workbook, this is only done on theoutcome worksheets). It is recommended that themanagement target worksheet be amended in this


way, so that the link between management targetsand objectives can be seen from the very beginning.It should also be made clearer that once themanagement targets have been selected, the sameones should be used for all the other worksheets in theassessment. Many sites initially selected newmanagement targets for each worksheet. Theworksheets used for the trial assessments referred to‘social and cultural’ objectives, but all sites broadenedthis to ‘socio-economic and cultural’ and the revisedWorkbook should use such wording. It was difficult todecide which type of management target to put‘research’ under, but most sites put it under socio-economic/cultural objectives.

The columns on ‘protected area values’ and‘additional attributes’ were not easily understood bythe Kenyan and Tanzanian sites. The former should beused to describe what it is about the managementtarget that merits the site being a protected area: e.g.if turtles are a management target, the protected areavalue might be that the MPA has the largest populationin the country. Mafia Island has ‘significancestatements’ in its management plan that express thesevalues. The column on ‘additional attributes’ is for otherpoints that might be relevant to the managementtarget, but that perhaps do not contribute to the factthat the site is an MPA. Clearer explanations andterminology will be required in the revised Workbook.

4.3.2. Threats

The methodology requires that potential and currentthreats are identified separately, and that each threatis analysed in terms of the stress caused to themanagement target, and the source of the stress. Theformer proved difficult, as many current threats arelikely to continue into the future or intensify, and so theworksheets tended to be repetitive. Theimplementation team for Cousin Island suggested thata more appropriate distinction might be stresses that

are happening regularly and those that happen onlyoccasionally.

For current threats, it was agreed that sites should focuson the main threats and not try and list everything.Similarly it was agreed that sites should not spend toomuch time on potential threats unless there are somevery clear ones on the horizon (e.g. titanium mining inKisite; a possible fish processing plant on Mafia).

The terminology for and concept of sources andstresses is confusing – ideally a better word for ‘stress’ isrequired. It is easiest to think of the source as the‘human activity or natural event’ that causes the stress.Also, it is difficult to decide how far back to go in termsof identifying sources. For example, poverty mayultimately be the source for many stresses, but MPAmanagers may not be able to have much influence onsuch a large source and it may be better to think morespecifically of the impact of such an issue on thoseinvolved with the MPA. Poor fishers may use damagingfishing methods which cause a ‘stress’ on the MPA, andthe source in this case would be destructive fishing. Aclearer explanation, with more examples, is needed inthe Workbook, as once understood, all those involvedsaw the importance and use in management ofmaking such a distinction.

It took some time for sites to understand that there maybe several sources for one stress, and conversely, asingle source may cause several stresses. The followingtable was used to illustrate how to fill in the columns thatdescribe the ‘severity of the stress’ and the relativecontribution of the source to the stress, and could beused as an example in the revised Workbook. TheWorkbook should emphasise that the sources should belined up with the correct stresses, and extra rows addedto the table as necessary.




4.3.3. Stakeholder engagement

Most sites did not understand that there are two ways todo this sheet:

• As separate worksheets for each managementtarget; this is recommendedbecause stakeholders may havedifferent levels/types ofengagement in relation to thedifferent targets – and in this casethe summary sheet is completed;

• As a single stakeholderengagement assessment for theMPA as a whole, in which case,the summary sheet is not needed.

Despite extensive explanations,several sites did the assessment asa whole, but also completed thesummary sheet, often givingdifferent ratings in each one. It issuggested that for the revisedWorkbook, the idea of doingseparate stakeholder assessmentsfor each management target is dropped, along withthe summary worksheet.

The Kenyan and Tanzanian sites had no problems inunderstanding and defining their stakeholders, but thispresented a problem for Cousin Island in the Seychelles.The revised Workbook would benefit from a definition ofstakeholders (e.g. ‘people, groups, communities andorganisations who use and depend on the MPA, whoseactivities affect it, or who have an interest in theseactivities, including government agencies, NGOs, localusers, universities and researchers’.) The Kenyanmanagement plans have a very long list ofstakeholders, so for the assessment each site identifiedthe key groups relevant in its own case. There wasuncertainty as to whether the managementauthority/park staff should be considered as a‘stakeholder’ – some sites did so, others did not, andsome guidance could be usefully given.

There were some questions about what ‘opportunities’for engagement mean, and this should be clarified inthe Workbook with examples e.g. – formal opportunities(e.g. representation on an Advisory Committee) orinformal opportunities (e.g. helping to promote/createpublic awareness about the MPA by guiding touristsround it).

All the sites ended up designing questionnaires for usewith stakeholders, as it was found that the tables weretoo complicated to use with most of them. Theworksheet could recommend this as a regularprocedure and provide examples or a generic versionbased on those used in the pilot assessments.

4.3.4. National context

MPA staff at sites in Kenya and Tanzania tended tohave little knowledge and understanding of thenational legislation, policies and issues that might affectthe running of their site, so completion of this worksheetwas a useful training exercise. This experience showedthat it is probably best if the sheet is completed with theassistance of and input from the national protectedarea agency as individual sites may not have thenecessary information. External technical assistancemay also be required as staff of the protected areaagencies themselves do not necessarily understandsome of these issues. The Workbook needs toemphasise that the questions should be used to guidethe completion of this worksheet. It might be better toput them directly on the worksheet.

The Workbook should emphasise that this sheet shouldfocus on relevant information. For example, sites initiallytended to list all environmental conventions, regardlessof whether they were relevant, and many did not knowthe difference between a convention or treaty and aninternational organisation (often confusing TRAFFIC withCITES). We could consider giving more guidance on thisin the Workbook itself, with an explanation of whattreaties and conventions are, and a list of relevant ones.


4.4. Planning

4.4.1. Adequacy of management plan

Most sites failed to complete the small table on p. 26 inthe Workbook that requires a summary of the plansavailable for the site (e.g. management plan, separatepolicy-related plans, operational plans etc.) This shouldperhaps be incorporated into the worksheet onmanagement plan adequacy.

4.4.2. Design

This worksheet was omitted from the initial Workbook,but a draft worksheet was provided for the assessmentswith guidance notes. This was incorporated in therevision prepared for the World Parks Congress. In thefinal revision, this should be fully revised andincorporated.

4.5. Inputs

Most sites found this worksheet very difficult as budgetsand financial reporting are rarely organised accordingto objectives or management targets. A simpler,clearer approach is needed, and this should beaddressed in the revision of the Workbook, perhaps alsolooking at examples from protected areas in otherregions. Cousin Island did the most detailed analysis,including information on how resources are obtained,but their report does not explain the methodology indetail. In revising this section, it would be useful tocontact Nature Seychelles.

4.6. Process

4.6.1. Assessment of managementprocesses worksheet

It was thought that it might be best to do this worksheettowards the end of the assessment, once all the mainissues had been discussed and reviewed. It should becompiled in a group process, or at least very thoroughlyreviewed as the ranking is a matter of judgement.Although the Workbook proposed a numerical rating, aqualitative rating such as ‘Very Good, Good, Fair andPoor’ could equally well be used as was the case forAldabra in the World Heritage assessment. This shouldbe considered for the revision of the Workbook. It wasgenerally agreed that the ‘effective percentage’column is not useful as it gives no additional informationand entails extra work – it should be deleted in therevised Workbook. The ‘additional points’, added tocertain criteria, caused much confusion, and a better

method for dealing with these important questionsshould be found. The final column in the table, currentlyheaded ‘Explanation for choice of rating andrecommendations’ should be divided into two toensure that both explanation and recommendations forimproving the situation are given.

4.6.2. Assessment of capacity

This worksheet has the same problems as the inputsworksheet – most staff do not work on onemanagement target or issue only and it is thus difficult toapproach the assessment in this way. It was suggestedthat a simple way to start would be to list the personnelwith information about their skills and training in relationto their jobs. Some sites (e.g. Mnazi Bay) were doing acapacity needs assessment as part of their workprogramme and it was suggested they might use thisactivity for the assessment. This sheet should be givenmore thought during the revision of the Workbook.

4.7. Outputs

4.7.1. Assessment of management planimplementation sheet

The Kenyan sites did not seem to have a regular systemfor reporting directly against the activities identified intheir management plans but both Cousin and Mafiahad well developed reporting systems and used thesein the assessments. For example, the Tanzanian marineparks produce a ‘consolidated’ annual report coveringall their activities for the Board of Trustees each yearwhich has a format very similar to the worksheet for‘assessment of management plan implementation’.This report, with the addition of a column to relate theactivities and outputs to the management targets, wasused by Mafia rather then the worksheet. The KenyanMPA management plans have a list of activities withtarget dates and this list was used for the assessment.More guidance on how to use existing reporting formatsand information should be provided in the Workbook forthis component.

Cousin added an additional rating to the list for ‘routinemanagement activity’ and this should be consideredfor the revised Workbook. The final column for‘comments/recommendations’ should be divided intotwo columns, one headed ‘progress made’ and one forrecommendations. The former would allow informationto be given on what activities had been carried out; thelatter should give clear, specific recommendationsrelating to follow up on each activity in themanagement plan.


4.8. Outcomes

4.8.1. Assessment of biodiversityobjectives/assessment of socio-economic objectives

The Kenyan and Tanzanian sites had to be remindedthat the assessment of biodiversity objectives involvesonly the management targets that relate to biodiversityobjectives; and assessment of socio-economicobjectives involves only management targets thatrelate to socio-economic objectives. This will need tobe made clear in the revised Workbook. There is nosheet for management targets associated with ‘othernatural values’ which may contribute to the confusion;the Workbook revision might want to consider whetherthis would be useful.

Columns 3 (measurement and indicators) and 4 (results)were not understood by the sites in Kenya, though afterconsiderable explanation one site grasped theconcept and used available data to fill in the resultscolumn. This to a large extent reflects the lack ofunderstanding of monitoring and the role it plays in MPAmanagement. This component should be explained inmore detail in the Workbook for others who have thesame problem. The Workbook should also emphasisethe need to fill in this worksheet with researchers andthose involved in monitoring programmes.

The column on overall health is probably not very usefulfor sites where long-term data or regular survey work arelacking. The Kenyan and Tanzanian sites filled thecolumn in, but the ratings largely represented theopinions of the wardens, rather than any scientificassessment. Similarly the preferred status column is notvery meaningful where good data are lacking. NatureSeychelles pointed out that this column is in any casedifficult to complete as even if the preferred status is notbeing met, it may be the best available. Equally, thecolumn asking whether the situation is reversible is notclear, as the condition of most populations andecosystems is indeed reversible.

4.8.2. Ranking threats

Several sites did not appreciate that this worksheet canonly be undertaken once the worksheets for currentand potential threats in the Context session have beencompleted. The ranking system was too complex formost of the sites and needs re-thinking. It is not clearwhether this component adds value to the assessmentas a whole and it might be better to leave it out so thatin this final section, the MPA sites concentrate onassessing their impact on the management targets.



4.9. Additional points to consider inWorkbook revision

4.9.1. Recommendations

Recommendations may come up at any stage in theassessment and in the course of compiling any of theworksheets. Watamu initially kept a running record of allthe recommendations that are being made, linked tothe relevant component of the assessment, which wasgood but subsequently was not included in the finalreport. It was recommended that other sites should dothis, but none did. It would be worth drawing attentionto the importance of the recommendations, and evenproviding a template to record these. Sites should beurged to produce precise, action-orientedrecommendations that can be carried out.

4.9.2. World Bank scorecard

A scorecard has been developed by the World Bank foruse in GEF projects related to MPAs (Staub andHatziolos, 2003). This was adapted from a tooldeveloped by the World Bank-WWF Alliance for use interrestrial protected areas (Stolton et al., 2003) which isbased mainly on the Process worksheet in the WorldHeritage Site Workbook, and thus does not addressassessment of outcomes. The aim is to provide a quickoverview of the initial state of management efforts andsubsequent progress over a period of years. Data fromassessments using the scorecard is to be put on line(www.MPAscorecard.net). The score card should befilled out by MPA staff and take a maximum of half aday to complete. A revision of the World Bank versionwas prepared for Mnazi Bay Ruvuma Estuary and couldperhaps usefully be included in the revised Workbook,for use by new sites, or those that wish to do a very quickassessment of progress.

4.9.3. Final assessment report

A format for the interim and final report was suggested:

1. Methods used – how the assessment was carried out• who was on the implementation team (names,positions, organisations)• what was each person’s role and responsibilities in theassessment• what meetings were held – when, where, whoattended, what was discussed and what resulted• How was the information gathered; list of sources (N.B.sites should keep a record of their sources of data andreferences)2. Results achieved• Worksheets • Text summary of main results of the assessment andconclusions3. Review of methodology• Any problems with the methodology or comments onthe worksheets

Most of the sites used this after several reminders.Expanded instructions on how to write the final reportwould be useful for sites with little experience of reportwriting. The final report should have a brief descriptionof the MPA giving the type and date of designation, sizeof both marine and terrestrial components, number ofstaff, number of users etc. It should also be stressed thatthe results of each worksheet should be analysed andinterpreted, and also checked for conflictingstatements; several of the site assessments havedifferent results for the same questions where they recuron different sheets.

5. RELATED PROJECT ACTIVITIES

5.1. Input to World Parks Congress

Preliminary results and experiences were presented atthe World Parks Congress (WPC), Durban, September2003, through discussions at two sessions:

• General contributions were made during a work shop organised by WCPA-Marine before the official start of the WPC, at which the resultsof the WCPA- Marine initiative were presented.

• A powerpoint presentation was made at the main session on assessing MPA management effective ness (part of Workshop Stream 5 ‘Maintaining Protected Areas for Now and theFuture’)

Minor revisions were made to the Workbook (e.g. allwork tables moved to annexes at the end; section ondesign assessment and the stakeholder questionnaireincluded) and a small number of copies weredistributed.



5.2. Exchange visits

Under the ICRAN co-financing for this activity, a budgetline was included for exchange visits, which are a majoractivity within the global ICRAN initiative. The initial aimwas to link these visits with the assessments themselves,so that sites could visit each other at key times in theassessments to share experiences. The difficulties inplanning and organising each individual assessmenthowever precluded incorporating exchange visits intothe early stages. Each site indicated which MPA theywould like to visit, and it was felt that a suitable time forvisits would be during the final assessment workshops,when results were being presented to the stakeholders.Most of the exchange visits have now taken place. Thevisit of the Malindi Marine Park representative to MnaziBay Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park took place at the timeof the final workshop for this assessment. Thereappeared to have been limited planning for the visit,but the Malindi representative made usefulcontributions at the workshop. It is recommended thatan assessment of the exchange visits and theircontribution to the project be made.

5.3. Module for WIOMSA/CZMCtraining manual

A module on assessing management effectiveness hadbeen included in the training course for MPA managersorganised by the Western Indian Ocean MarineScience Association (WIOMSA) and the Coastal ZoneManagement Centre (CZMC) in June 2002, as part ofthe session on monitoring and evaluation. This wasbased on the draft Workbook that was in preparation atthe time, and was presented by Sue Wells (IUCN-EARP)and Lani Watson (WCPA-Marine), with a case study onthe St Lucia World Heritage Site assessment by JeanHarris. The module was written up at the request ofWIOMSA and was incorporated in the training coursemanual that was revised and launched at WPC(Francis et al 2003).

6. CONSTRAINTS

6.1. Capacity issues

The assessments at sites in Kenya and Seychellescoincided with a period of extensive personnelchanges. The Warden at Malindi changed during theperiod of the assessment, and Watamu’s warden wasvery new. Subsequently both members of the nationalco-ordinating team left KWS. At Cousin Island, theadministrative officer who attended the introductoryworkshop left the NGO just before the assessmentstarted. It was suggested that the Kenyan sites shouldaddress the problem of personnel changes in theirassessments, for example giving a strongrecommendation that MPA personnel, particularlythose who have received significant marine-oriented



training, should not be transferred so readily to terrestrialprotected areas. This recommendation was not madehowever, perhaps because the sites were worriedabout appearing to criticise KWS.

6.2. Inadequate planning

The Kenyan and Tanzanian sites found it difficult todevelop and then implement their work plans for theassessments. Activities were often delayed or new onesintroduced without reference to the overall plan, whichalso made it difficult for the consultant to assist sites. Inaddition, many sites were unable to explain clearly howthe funds were being used. In some cases, funds hadbeen used for unnecessary activities. This difficulty infollowing the short and fairly simple work plan for theassessment is perhaps in itself one measure ofmanagement effectiveness at some sites. Wardens andsenior staff in Kenya and Tanzania would benefit fromfurther training (including practice ‘on-the-job’) inplanning and reporting.

6.3. Lack of direct involvement bysenior levels of national protectedarea agencies

In Kenya and Tanzania, where more than one site wasinvolved, it would have been better if the nationalmanagement authorities (MPRU for Tanzania and KWSMombasa Coast office for Kenya) had been directlyinvolved in the project, with some financial support fortheir contributions. The KWS Mombasa office did,nevertheless, play a major role in organising logistics,holding meetings and providing assistance and supportto the individual sites. Where funding was essential, theindividual sites were asked to contribute to this fromtheir funding from IUCN. MPRU did not play an activerole in the Tanzanian assessments although there weretwo discussions with the technical consultant and MPRUstaff, and an apparent willingness to be involved. Therewas also no presentation of the assessments to eitherthe Kenyan or Tanzanian agencies at the end, and thusno formal endorsement of the results. This was largelydue to lack of funds, and is currently being addressed infuture follow-up activities.

6.4. Over-complex methodology

As discussed earlier, the worksheets were too complexfor some of the MPA staff and also for review by someof the stakeholder groups. This may have been partlybecause it had been adapted from a set of verydetailed methods, aimed at well established sites withgood capacity (the method was first developed inAustralia). It might have been better to have designedthe worksheets from scratch, and to have incorporateda questionnaire approach into the methodologythroughout. The worksheets have been found to be toocomplicated in other places where the methodology isbeing piloted by WCPA’s Management Effectiveness

Task Force, and possible solutions should be discussedwith those involved in METF.

6.5. Poor communication with the sites

Problems were encountered in providing technicaladvice through e-mail to some of the sites in Tanzaniaand Kenya. Malindi did not have functional e-mailthroughout most of the assessment; others had had itinstalled very recently (e.g. Kisite) and had very littleexperience using it. Several of the personnel involved inKenya and Tanzania had difficulties dealing with writtencomments; it seems that they were often not received(probably because of e-mail problems); sometimes notread; and sometimes possibly not understood. Verbalcommunication proved much more successful. Thework plan for the consultant indicated 3 days oftechnical input per site, and was the minimum requiredfor the Tanzanian and Kenyan sites. However, in severalinstances less direct input was provided than intendedpartly because of the reluctance of sites to ask for helpand partly because of the slowness in work planningand poor co-ordination overall. As a result, theemphasis had to be on correspondence, or in the caseof Kenya on joint meetings with the wardens from all thesites, which worked well in the case of those Wardenswho attended regularly.

7. CONCLUSIONS

Although the methodology was probably too complexfor some sites, all involved found a benefit in theprocess. It helped MPA staff to think about the reasonsbehind the establishment of the site, how theirmanagement activities can have an impact on bothbiodiversity and stakeholders, how even smallinsignificant management issues can affect the overallsuccess of an MPA, and it encouraged them to lookmore carefully at their management plans. All sixcomponents of the methodology were considereduseful, and all sites felt that the results of the assessmentsshould be incorporated into the review and revisionprocess for management plans and, in the case ofMnazi Bay Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park, into thedevelopment of the first management plan.

All sites have similar protected area values relating tocoral reefs, mangroves, sea grasses and threatenedspecies such as turtles, dugong. Socio-economicmanagement targets relate primarily to fisheries andother marine resource use, tourism, and all sites haveobjectives relating to research and environmentaleducation. The general impression from theassessments is that some MPAs are having a positiveimpact on some forms of biodiversity (corals, fish, turtles)but that their socio-economic impact is unknown.Despite the numerous monitoring initiatives underway(Mangubhai, 2002), the results of the assessmentsindicate that these are rarely adequate for helping to



measure the effectiveness of an MPA. Furthermore,results from monitoring programmes and research areoften carried out by independent researchers, and arenot always made available or interpreted in anappropriate manner for MPA staff. Major efforts areneeded to ensure that monitoring and research aredesigned and implemented to provide the informationthat is needed for management and to involve MPAstaff and stakeholders. This conclusion reflects the widerdebate in the conservation and scientific literatureconcerning the need for monitoring programmes thatare more appropriately designed to support biodiversityconservation and management (e.g. Danielsen et al.,2003).

Most sites reported that the assessments wereparticularly valuable in terms of improving relationshipswith stakeholders. In several instances, the assessmentwas the first time that the MPA staff had approached astakeholder group for information and opinions. In allcases, the stakeholders expressed great appreciationof the exercise. The assessments also revealed thatstakeholders are often very unaware of the aims of theMPA, the legislation relating to it, and how it operates.This indicates a need for better communication withstakeholders and provision of more targetedinformation. At the same time the extent of stakeholderinvolvement in assessments was probably not sufficientto ensure that the assessment was truly participatory. Insome cases, this was due to lack of time, but it was alsoa result of the traditional top-down approach tomanagement that is now gradually changing toconsultation. Mombasa reported that stakeholderswere surprised by the discussions as, in their minds,workshops and meetings were for the purpose ofproviding them with ‘training’.

The concept of self-assessment is not yet wellunderstood or accepted in the countries involved,particularly where government institutions are involved.This made it difficult to introduce the methodology andto ensure that assessments were carried out in astransparent and objective manner as possible. Formany of the worksheets a higher ranking tended to begiven than was warranted in this initial assessment. Forexample, the assessment of the adequacy of themanagement plan was difficult for most MPAmanagers, probably because they were generallyprepared and approved by senior staff in theorganization. For both the Kenyan and TanzanianMPAs, there was no very evident support from higherlevels of management which meant that theassessments probably had a low priority in terms ofactivities to be undertaken by the park staff. Some ofthe sites initially thought that the assessments would betoo difficult to carry out, but were very enthusiasticonce they had understood what was required andonce the process was underway.

The regular personnel change encountered at manysites is a common problem and directly affects theeffectiveness of a protected area. Kenya in particularhas a major constraint, in that KWS policy is to movestaff around, often at very short notice. As a result,individuals who may have received specific marine PAtraining may find themselves transferred to terrestrialprotected areas and vice versa, resulting in Wardenswith little marine experience. This is one of the reasons,why Kenya does not have a more solid cadre of MPAmanagers and practitioners, despite Kenya’s longhistory of MPA management. Nevertheless, in Kenya,the process of carrying out the assessment as anational-level exercise enhanced collaboration andexperience sharing between the MPA staff of thedifferent Parks and Reserves, particularly the Wardens,who appeared to both benefit from the exercise, andto enjoy the discussions that it engendered. It had beenhoped that MPRU would facilitate a similarcollaboration between the two marine park sites inTanzania, but it appears that this agency lacks thecapacity for this type of activity.

In Kenya, younger wardens (Malindi/Watamu) foundthe assessment easier than the older ones(Mombasa/Kisite) partly because the approach of self-assessment was perhaps less initimidating for them;partly because of their greater familiarity withcomputers, tables and report writing. On the otherhand, the older Wardens had a much greaterunderstanding of how the MPAs functioned and whatwere obstacles and constraints. Many sites felt that theassessment took up too much time in relation to theirday-to-day management activities. This providesfurther support for the need for a simpler method,although if personnel remain constant, the nextassessment should be quicker as people will have sometraining in the methodology. Ensuring that assessmentsare repeated in 2-3 years time will help to build

Also overlooked in the original work plans, was theneed, in Kenya and Tanzania, for simplified Kiswahilisummaries of the final assessment report so that allstakeholder groups benefit from the results. In Kenya,the potential for an overview national-level report,pulling together the results of all the assessments, thatKWS would take the lead in preparing, has beendiscussed, and is planned for presentation at theInternational Coral Reef Symposium in 2004. Funding forthese additional outputs would need to be identified.

The participants at the introductory workshop in April2003 requested a final regional workshop to shareresults. This seems a good idea, and could perhaps beconsidered.

8.2. Follow-up activities at each site

Recommendations coming out of the individualassessments take two forms:

• changes to the management process itself or new management interventions, where sufficient information is available to show that certain aspectsof management are inadequate; and

• collection of new information where data are insufficient to make a statement about a particularmanagement activity, impact etc - this might meanrecommendations for improving monitoring programmes or developing new ones, carrying outresearch etc.

The long-term aim is for the sites involved to act on therecommendations, and then repeat the assessment in2-3 years time to see the changes (see below). Asmentioned in the main body of the report, some of therecommendations can be followed up very easily withexisting resources at the sites. However, there are othersthat will require external support in the form of fundingor technical assistance. ICRAN and IUCN-EARP maywish to consider whether they will develop furtherpartnerships with the sites to follow-up this initial work. Ifnot, the MPAs should consider seeking other donorsupport.

8.3. Revision of the Workbook andexpansion to other MPAs

IUCN-EARP has already agreed, and has the funding(through the NORAD funded WIO Marine BiodiversityProject), to revise the Workbook to make it easier forother MPAs to use, particularly those that do not have alot of experience or have limited skills in analysis andreport writing. Recommendations made in this reportwill be used in the revision. It might also be worthconsidering translation of the Workbook into otherlanguages (particularly French) for use in non-anglophone countries in the region.



capacity within MPA staff for analysis, although it is clearthat additional specific training on data analysis,interpretation and report writing is urgently needed.Although Cousin Island assessment was carried outwithout external technical assistance, this is probably anunusual situation, and it will be important for most MPAsstarting off the process to have advice from individualsor organizations familiar with the concept andmethodology. The MPA managers training coursesorganized by WIOMSA, provide one means ofdisseminating information about the methodology.

The project has thus demonstrated that short (3-6months), low-cost assessments can be useful. TheWCPA-Marine methodology involves a more detailedassessment of the outputs/outcomes that takes timeand requires the collection of new data, and oftensignificant funding. Ideally, an MPA should have amanagement plan, baseline data (a benchmark) fromthe time that it was established, and have been inoperation for a period of time (2 years is suggested)before such an assessment is conducted. However, theguidebook (Pomeroy et al., 2002) is useful reading foranyone carrying out even a simple MPA assessment,and many of the indicators described could be used.Both the WCPA-Marine approach and the simpler butbroader WIO methodology described here areprobably needed. The broader one is probablyparticularly useful in this region, where there is limitedcapacity and resources. But if an MPA has theresources, the more detailed assessment will providemore information and give a more rigorous assessment.

Finally, the recently completed Toolkit for ManagingMarine Protected Areas in the WIO (IUCN 2004) providesguidance on assessing management effectiveness anda host of other activities covered in the Workbookassessments. The Toolkit will also be available on theweb (www.wiomsa.org\mpatoolkit.htm), and willprovide an invaluable reference source for MPAmanagers as they assess the various aspects ofmanaging their MPA.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

These are directed at the pilot sites themselves,organizations such as IUCN-EARO and ICRAN that havebeen supporting them, and also the broader WesternIndian Ocean MPA community.

8.1. Possible additional activities tocomplete the initial assessments

Although not catered for in the initial work plans, it wasfelt that each site should have a final feedbackworkshop with its stakeholders to present the results ofthe assessment. This is partly because the assessment atmany sites was more of an ‘oral’ process than themethodology was designed for.


It is essential that costs are kept as low as possible ifassessment are to be mainstreamed into an MPA’smonitoring and reporting system. The main fundingrequirements are for data collection, holdingstakeholder consultations and meetings, andpreparation of the final report, and these dependgreatly on the logistics of the MPA and its capacity. Inthe long run, the costs of the assessments themselvesmust be met by the MPA.

Experience suggests that most MPAs will need furthertraining in carrying out assessments and probablytechnical assistance during any initial assessment fornew sites. For this reason, financial as well as technicalsupport will be required, and a longer-term programmecould be developed in the WIO, with a focus onmainstreaming assessments into MPA management.

8.5. Improvements in monitoring,research and access to relevantinformation

The need for improved monitoring and research inMPAs in the WIO was stressed in many places in thisreport, and is re-iterated here, as it is an area thatagencies such as IUCN-EARO and ICRAN might bewilling to support. Detailed recommendations are notprovided here, but could be developed by lookingmore carefully at the results of the pilot assessments.


Expansion to other MPAs in the region could occurnaturally, through dissemination of the Workbook andsites themselves taking the initiative to undertakeassessments. Alternatively, organizations could take amore pro-active role in developing a programme toexpand the approach, seeking funding and technicalinput as required. In either case, it would be useful toidentify how better links could be established with theWCPA-Marine initiatives and other assessment activitiesboth within the region (e.g. World Heritage Siteassessments) and elsewhere (e.g. World BankScorecard). One option might be for an organizationsuch as IUCN-EARO to convene a workshop tocompare the recent pilot initiatives at World Heritagesites in the Eastern African with the MPA trials, bringing inany additional experience as relevant. The WCPA METFmight also be interested in such an initiative, in terms ofdisseminating lessons learned.

8.4. Future assessments andsustainability of the programme

Ultimately, it is hoped that MPAs will mainstreamassessments into their monitoring and reporting systemsat regular intervals in order to develop an adaptivemanagement approach. Both Kenya and Tanzaniahave stated that they would consider this, and themanagement plan for Cousin Island is due to bereviewed in the very near future and the assessmentresults will be used for this. Many MPAs haverequirements for periodic review of the managementplan, and assessments could fit in well with this.



9. REFERENCES

Danielsen, F., Mendoza, M.M., Alviola, P., Balete, D.S.,Enghoff, M., Poulsen, M.K., and Jensen, A.E. 2003.Biodiversity monitoring in developing countries: whatare we trying to achieve? Oryx 34 (4); 407-409.

Emerton, L. and Tessema, Y. 2001. Economic constraintsto the Management of Marine Protected Areas: thecase of Kisite Marine National Park and MpungutiMarine National Reserve, Kenya. IUCN Eastern AfricanProgramme, Nairobi, Kenya. 26 pp.

Francis, J., Johnstone, R., van’t Hof, T., van Zwol, C. andSadacharan, D. (eds). 2003. Training for the SustainableManagement of Marine Protected Areas: a TrainingManual for MPA Managers. CZMC/WIOMSA. 267 pp.

Hockey, P.A.R. and Branch G.M. 1997. Criteria,objectives and methodology for evaluating marineprotected areas in South Africa. S.Afr.J. Sci. 18 : 369-383.

Hockings, M. 1998. Evaluating management ofprotected areas: integrating planning and evaluation.Environmental Management 22(3): 337-346.

Hockings, M., Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. 2000a.Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing theManagement of Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 121pp.

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N. and Parrish, J. 2000b.The Enhancing Our Heritage Toolkit – Book 1. A trainingmanual on how to build assessment, monitoring andreporting systems on the management effectiveness ofWorld Heritage Sites. 36pp.

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N. and Parrish, J. 2000c.The Enhancing Our Heritage Toolkit – Book 2. AWorkbook on how to build assessment, monitoring andreporting systems on the management effectiveness ofWorld Heritage Sites. 136pp.

IUCN 2004. Managing Marine Protected Areas: A Toolkitfor the Western Indian Ocean. IUCN Eastern AfricaRegional Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, xii + 170pp.

Mangubhai, S. 2002. Biological and socioeconomicmonitoring programmes and assessment recentlycarried out or underway in MPAs in selected countries inthe Western Indian Ocean: Kenya, Madagascar,Seychelles, South Africa and Tanzania. Unpublishedreport, IUCN Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi,Kenya.

Mangubhai, S. 2003. Assessing ManagementEffectiveness of Marine Protected Areas: a draftWorkbook for the Western Indian Ocean. IUCN EasternAfrica Regional Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 74 pp.

Muthiga, N. 2001. The effectiveness of managementand the ICAM experience in marine protected areas:the Mombasa Marine Park and Reserve. Paperpresented at the Center for Environmental Researchand Conservation Leaders Forum.

Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E. and Watson, L.M. 2002. How isyour MPA doing? A Guidebook. Biophysical,Socioeconomic and Governance Indicators for theEvaluation of Management Effectiveness of MarineProtected Areas.

Seychelles Island Foundation 2002. Initial Assessment:report of initial management effectiveness evaluation.Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles, Enhancing our Heritageproject, IUCN/WCPA. 117 pp.

Staub, F. and Hatziolos, M.E. 2003. Score Card to AssessProgress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goalsfor Marine Protected Areas. The World Bank.Stolton, S., et al., 2003. Report Progress at ProtectedArea Sites. A simple site-level tracking tool developedfor the World Bank and WWF.



ANNEX 1. Schedule of events and activities

ANNEX 2. Outputs produced

1. Training presentations and materials for, and report of, introductory workshop, Malindi April 2003 (submittedto IUCN-EARP)

2. Reports for each site assessment prepared by siteimplementation teams:

• Nature Seychelles. 2003. Assessing Management Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas Report (Final): Cousin Island Special Reserve, Seychelles.

• Warden Kisite/Mpunguti Marine Park and Reserve. 2003. Assessment of management effectiveness of marine protected areas. DraftReport Contract No. EARO/25831-0021/795. (for Kisite/Mpunguti).

• Warden Mombasa Marine Park and Reserve. 2003. Assessment of management effectiveness in Mombasa Marine National Park and Reserve. Report: Contract no. EARO/25831-0021/800

• Kenya Wildlife Service 2003. Assessment of management effectiveness of marine protected areas: Malindi Marine National Park and Reserve. Report to IUCN-EARO, November 2003. Contract No. EARO/25831-0021/794

• Warden Watamu Marine Park. 2003. Assessing management effectiveness of marine protected areas. Watamu Marine National Park and Reserve. Report to IUCN-EARO, Contract No. EARO/25831-0021/794.

• Kazimoto, S.L., Chale, T. and Msina, C. 2003. Assessment of management effectiveness: Mafia Island Marine Park. Final report to IUCN-EARO. Contract No. EARO 25831-0021/797

• Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park 2003. Report on the Management Effectiveness Assessment, Mnazi Bay – Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park, Tanzania. Oct 2003.

3.Final report (this document)

4.Materials prepared for WPC

• Powerpoint presentation• Paper for WCPA CD-ROM: Wells, S. and

Muthiga, N. 2003. Assessment of management effectiveness in selected marine protected areas in the Western Indian Ocean.



5. Revision of the Workbook – preliminary revisioncarried out to produce version suitable for distribution atWPC:

Mangubhai, S. and Wells, S. 2003. Assessingmanagement effectiveness of marine protectedareeas: a Workbook for the Western Indian Ocean.IUCN-EARO/GEMPA

6. Module for WIOMSA training manual:

Wells, S., Watson, L. and Mangubhai, S. 2003. AssessingManagement Effectiveness in a Marine Protected Area.Module 10. In Francis, J., Johnstone, R., van’t Hof, T.,van Zwol, C. and Sadacharan, D. (Eds). Training for theSustainable Management of Marine Protected Areas: atraining manual for MPA managers. CZMC/WIOMSA,267 pp.





Documents

The Western Indian Ocean Marine Biodiversity …...The Western Indian Ocean Marine Biodiversity Conservation Project iv Progress in the Development of a Partnership Programme for Implementing