DOCUMENT DETAILS

Title

THE IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS: GLOBAL STANDARD

Version

0.4 April 2016 (draft of Version 1.0 to be released in May 2016)

Source language

English. Official translations available.

Responsible Unit

IUCN GLOBAL PROTECTED AREAS PROGRAMME

Developed by

IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS: STANDARDS WORKING GROUP

Subject (Taxonomy)

Protected Areas; Conservation Outcomes; Voluntary Sustainability Standard; Protected Planet; Management Effectiveness; Assurance; Aichi Target 11.

Date approved

Draft

Approved by

Draft

Applicable to

IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas (GLPCA)

Objective

To set globally consistent criteria that benchmark exemplary governance, design, planning and management in Protected and Conserved Areas and define successful conservation outcomes

Is part of

IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS (GLPCA) PROGRAMME

Conforms to

IUCN Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS)

Related Documents

IUCN GLPCA User Manual (Standards Development)

ISEAL Code of Best Practice for Sustainability Standards

Distribution

IUCN COMPASS; IUCN Union Portal and IUCN website

‘Protected Planet’ portal (UNEP-WCMC)

DOCUMENT HISTORY

CURRENT VERSION 0.4

Version

Release date

Summary of changes

Version 0.1

Released in September 2012

Presented for feedback at IUCN World Conservation Congress 2012, Jeju, Korea.

Version 0.2

Released in June 2014

Major adjustments to align with ISEAL Alliance Credibility Principles Expert Workshop (June 2014) to refine content. Version adopted for 2014 Pilot Phase.

Version 0.3

Released in September 2015

Global Consultation version, including minor adjustments based on feedback from evaluation of Pilot Phase (2014) and World Parks Congress feedback (Nov. 2014). Expert evaluation of comments received on this Version form basis for adjustments in current revision draft 0.4 and future Version 1.0

For further information contact: glpca@iucn.org

INTRODUCTION

Protected areas are a universal approach to nature conservation on land and in the oceans. Conserving nature is essential for the future of humanity and for securing the persistence of natural diversity that supports human life. Well-governed, well-designed and well-managed protected areas are the most effective tool for conserving nature, and provide a wide range of ecological, socio-economic, cultural and spiritual benefits.

The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas (GLPCA) Programme aims to encourage, achieve and promote effective, equitable and successful protected areas in all partner countries and jurisdictions. At the heart of the IUCN GLPCA Programme is a Global Standard. It describes a set of criteria for successful conservation in Protected Areas and thereby provides an international benchmark for quality that motivates improved performance and achievement of conservation objectives. By committing to meet this standard, site managers seek to demonstrate and maintain performance and deliver real nature conservation results. The objective of the Global Standard is to define success in Protected and Conserved Areas. It does so through globally consistent criteria that set the benchmark for exemplary PA governance, design, planning and management, which are the preconditions for strong conservation outcomes.

THE IUCN GLPCA DEVELOPMENT PHASE 2016 to 2018

IUCN began a concept for a Green List of Protected Areas in 2008. In 2012, IUCN Resolution WCC 2012-Res-041-EN called for the development of objective criteria for ‘Green Listing’. The IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) and IUCN’s Global Protected Areas Programme accordingly convened a global development and consultation process to create and test a new Standard for Protected Areas. A pilot phase in eight jurisdictions was undertaken with results presented at the IUCN World Parks Congress, Sydney, November 2014. A total of 25 Protected Areas received a ‘Green List’ certificate for their achievements.

In the current Development Phase, 2016 to 2018, Protected Areas must demonstrate how they have maintained performance and meet the revised Standard. New protected areas from a partnership of at least 20 jurisdictions will engage in the GLPCA Programme.

INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BEST PRACTICE FOR SUSTAINABILITY STANDARDS

IUCN is committed to align the development of the GLPCA Programme to the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL Alliance) - Code of Best Practice in Standard Setting http://www.isealalliance.org/our-work/defining-credibility/codes-of-good-practice/standard-setting-code. The IUCN GLPCA is seeking to comply with all relevant ISEAL requirements by 2018.

This Version 1.0 of the Standard (May 2016) is informed by the lessons learned from the evaluation of the pilot phase in 2014. Following ISEAL guidelines, a global public consultation opportunity provided valuable stakeholder feedback in 2015. The Standard is supported by an assurance procedure and regulations, as documented in the accompanying IUCN GLPCA User Manual. The GLPCA User Manual describes the vision, goals and objectives of the overall IUCN GLPCA Programme and its theory of change. It provides the framework for implementation of the Programme globally, and on a jurisdictional basis.

THE IUCN GLPCA GLOBAL STANDARD

The IUCN GLPCA Global Standard is organized into four components that contribute to successful nature conservation in Protected Areas, illustrated below (figure 1). The baseline components concern “Good Governance”, “Design and Planning”, and “Effective Management”. These support the component on “Successful Conservation Outcomes” attesting to the successful achievement of an area’s goals and objectives.

Figure 1: Components of the IUCN GLPCA Standard that guide a success in protected areas

Each component consists of a number of criteria. These are globally consistent requirements that collectively describe the efforts needed by a Protected Area to fully achieve the Global Standard. A ‘Green List’ Protected Area is one that is currently evaluated to achieve all criteria, across all four components.

GLOBALLY CONSISTENT; LOCALLY RELEVANT

The Global Standard is implemented through a jurisdictional approach, tailored to each country or region where the GLPCA is adopted. The application of each criterion is through understanding the specific context of the area. The Programme allows for flexibility in each jurisdiction in the interpretation of the Global Standard.

For each criterion in the Global Standard, a set of generic Indicators and associated Means of Verification is maintained by IUCN. These generic indicators may be adapted to the context of each participating jurisdiction, to allow for regional and local characteristics and circumstances in which Protected Areas operate. The guidance and rules for this process are detailed in the IUCN GLPCA User Manual.

ASSURANCE AND EVALUATION

The IUCN GLPCA Programme assures that ‘Green List’ Protected Areas are effectively and equitably managed, and achieving their goals and objectives. A global partnership with Accreditation Services international (ASI) provides the GLPCA with assurance mechanisms and procedures that ensure independence and credibility of decision-making. Involvement on the part of individual protected areas, conserved areas, and their governing agencies is entirely voluntary, through commitment to the GLPCA to promote continuous improvement.

‘GREEN LIST’ STATUS FOR PROTECTED AREAS

Sites wishing to achieve ‘Green List’ status must demonstrate successful implementation of the IUCN GLPCA Global Standard. This is evaluated in three phases.

1. Commitment Phase:

The first step for a Protected Area is a voluntary commitment to the GLPCA Programme. This commitment places the area on a global Register after the site demonstrates the basic requirements for consideration. Sites then undergo an initial assessment against the Global Standard and adapted Indicators for their jurisdiction. Once the site has showed that it has the ingredients and potential for success, and that there is broad-based support for their achievement of the ‘Green List’, it is granted Candidate status. It is during this phase that site managers will learn of areas that may need to be strengthened before they can be considered to meet the Standard.

2. Candidate Phase:

Once admitted as a candidate, the site begins a second phase of assessment against the full set of GLPCA Standard criteria, providing evidence against all indicators and addressing any identified shortcomings over a period of time. This phase of improvement may take several years depending on the issues that have been identified. Candidate sites can eventually be considered for Nomination to the Green List, once they deem all criteria to be achieved and all evidence and stakeholder support is secured and presented.

3. Nomination Phase:

The Nomination process involves the preparation and submission of a complete nomination dossier by a candidate site addressing all Global Standard criteria. It will be evaluated by an Expert Assessment Group for the local jurisdiction, with the process audited by an independent and accredited Reviewer. Based on this recommendation, the final decision will be approved, or referred, by the IUCN GLPCA independent global Panel of senior experts.

Figure 2: Achieving the Standard - from Commitment to Candidate to Green List nomination

THE ‘GREEN LIST’ OF PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS

Once a Candidate site is awarded ‘Green List’ status, the management and representatives of the area will be provided a certificate of five-year duration. The area will be afforded the right to use the IUCN GLPCA mark and logo, and will be recognised and promoted by IUCN as a global exemplar in conservation achievement. Additionally, all Registered, Candidate and ‘Green List’ sites will be profiled on the Protected Planet portal of the UNEP- World Conservation Monitoring Centre’s (WCMC) World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Candidate-level Protected Areas can make limited use of the IUCN GLPCA brand in order to secure recognition and support for their efforts to improve performance.

During this period, however, the IUCN GLPCA Programme focuses on helping ‘Green List’ Protected Areas to maintain their status, as well as encourage new areas to join and improve. A 2-year ‘fitness check’ review of progress and performance is carried out for all ‘Green List’ sites. However, throughout the period, the IUCN GLPCA Programme factors and filters stakeholder views and public opinion into the area’s ongoing performance, through alerts that may trigger a performance review. The IUCN GLPCA User Manual also deals with procedures for complaints and grievances from any parties involved.

In the fifth-year of a Protected Area’s ‘Green List’ status, a process for renewal will ensure that a new evaluation focuses on those priority elements that have altered in the intervening period, either in the context and circumstance of the Protected Area, or to align with any updated procedures or updates in the Global Standard or GLPCA Programme requirements. If performance has been consistent or improved, then the area can expect to enjoy ‘Green List’ status for a further 5-year period. If for any reason new challenges impact the area’s achievement of the Standard, it may be considered again as a Candidate, and encouraged to develop a specific plan of action to regain Green List status through renewed nomination.

Consult the GLPCA User Manual or contact the IUCN Global Protected Areas Programme for more information on the process of achieving the GLPCA Standard (glpca@iucn.org).

THE IUCN GREEN LIST OF PROTECTED AND CONSERVED AREAS:

GLOBAL STANDARD

Standard Element

Description

Component

A high level organizing principle of the GLPCA Standard. Each Component consists of a set of Criteria and their associated Indicators and suggested Means of Verification.

Criteria (singular: Criterion)

Each of the GLPA Standard’s four components is associated with a number of Criteria. Criteria are the globally consistent requirements that PAs must meet in order to be Green Listed. The Criteria are not designed for direct assessment in the field. Each Criterion is benchmarked with a number of generic Indicators that detail the specific requirements that must be met to demonstrate conformity with that Criterion.

Indicators

A quantitative or qualitative variable which can be measured or described, and which provides a means of judging whether a PA complies with the requirements of a Criterion. Indicators and the associated thresholds thereby define the requirements for successful PA management at the jurisdictional level and are the primary basis of assessment for the GLPCA.

Guidance notes

The guidance notes provide additional clarification to the intent of the Component or Criterion of the Standard. They should provide reference and offer steps toward general conformity, and describe how a PA may approach compliance with the relevant criteria they support. They explain the context for the Generic Indicators and help guide their Adaptation in each jurisdiction.

Means of Verification

A source of information that would allow an assessor to evaluate compliance with an Indicator. Means of Verification help provide clarity to PA managers and assessors, but are not normative

Component 1: GOOD GOVERNANCE

Green List areas demonstrate equitable and effective governance

Guidance notes:

Component 1 is about the quality of governance of the protected area, and its links to the performance against Criteria for Components 2 and 3, ultimately yielding successful conservation outcomes in Component 4.

As described in the IUCN Best Practice Guidelines on Governance of Protected Areas[footnoteRef:1], governance is concerned with: [1: Borrini-Feyerabend, G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, A. Phillips and T. Sandwith (2013). Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xvi + 124pp.]

•who decides on the objectives of a PA, how to pursue them, and with what means;

•how those decisions are taken;

•who holds power, authority and responsibility; and

•who should be held accountable.

Practically, governance arrangements can vary greatly depending on the local context, but they can be defined as one of the four types as defined by IUCN1

•Type A: governance by government;

•Type B: shared governance;

•Type C: private governance; and

•Type D: governance by Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

IUCN has defined five broad principles for good governance of protected areas (elsewhere described as equitable management or equitable governance):

•Legitimacy and Voice;

•Direction;

•Performance;

•Accountability; and

•Fairness and Rights.

These principles should be applied flexibly according to context, although some relate to human rights for which international standards are progressively written into law.

Governance concerns the processes and institutions that guide how decisions are made. It sets the ‘rules of the game’ that determine the ability of different actors to participate in decision-making, what knowledge should be drawn on, how a protected area is integrated into the broader landscape and land-use and who has a legitimate voice in the management of a protected area. Not all stakeholders and rights-holders have equal opportunities and capacities within decision-making processes, so governance of a protected area should ensure that decision-making processes seek to balance inequitable distribution of power and resources[footnoteRef:2]. [2: Advancing Equity in Protected Area Conservation. IIED Briefing Note, Feb 2016 http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/17344IIED.pdf ]

IUCN’s Environmental and Social Management System (IUCN ESMS, April 2016) also provides further guidance.

1.1 GUARANTEE LEGITIMACY AND VOICE

There are clearly defined, legitimate and functional governance arrangements, in which the interests of civil society, rights-holders and stakeholders are fairly represented and addressed, including those relating to the establishment or designation of the site.

Guidance Notes:

The area is legally established in compliance with relevant international agreements and national and applicable regional legislation, and the area’s legal status and boundaries are clearly defined and are not subject to major ongoing legal or social dispute.

Considerations of legitimacy will help determine how the voices of different actors, with different levels of power, are properly accounted for in decision-making.

1.2 ENSURE PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

Rights-holders and stakeholders are effectively and regularly involved in decision-making and the adaptive management of the site.

Guidance Notes:

Key stakeholders and rights-holders are actively and effectively involved in the processes of decision making regarding the site’s management, over time (i.e. planning, implementation of management actions, monitoring and evaluation of site management), as it affects them. .

1.3 ACHIEVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Governance arrangements and decision-making processes are transparent and appropriately communicated, and responsibilities for implementation are clear, including an efficient process to identify, hear and resolve complaints, disputes, or grievances.

Guidance Notes:

Governance processes and decision-making are open to scrutiny by all stakeholders, with information presented in appropriate formats and the reasoning behind decisions evident. There is also an appropriate, accessible process to identify, hear and resolve complaints, disputes, or grievances related to the governance or management of the area.

1.4 ENABLE GOVERNANCE VITALITY TO RESPOND ADAPTIVELY TO CHANGE

Governance arrangements enable management to draw upon the best available knowledge of the ecological and social context of the area, and effectively anticipate, learn from, and respond to change during planning and decision-making.

Guidance Notes:

Governance arrangements should be in place that enable adaptive capacity to respond to events, knowledge, monitoring and learning. Adaptive governance should enable action despite uncertainty about future environmental change, and should support iterative learning within protected area planning and management to foster a culture of experimentation and risk taking.

Governance determines whether, and how, evaluation and learning from protected area monitoring programmes are integrated into on-going planning and management efforts. A solid foundation of adaptive governance should ensure that an area is able to monitor, measure and demonstrate that nature conservation and social goals and objectives are being achieved in the face of changing circumstances.

Adaptive governance instils a learning culture into all aspects of protected area management and draws on multiple types of knowledge (scientific, experiential, local and traditional) where relevant. Ecosystems and social systems change over time; a learning culture will enable management to adapt to changing circumstances.

Adaptive management is made possible through governance vitality which is about taking decisions in timely, well connected, adaptable, wise, creative and empowering ways.

Component 2: DESIGN AND PLANNING

Green List areas have clear, long-term conservation goals and objectives, based on a sound understanding of their natural, cultural and social-economic context.

Guidance notes:

This component is about ensuring that the characteristics of the protected area will support the long term conservation of the natural values and associated cultural and ecosystem services values of the site. The conservation goals are consistent with the IUCN protected area categories and are based on a robust understanding of the major natural and cultural values of the site.

Protected area managers have sufficient and appropriate information to support effective planning to maintain protected area values over time, address threats to these values, and adapt to the impact of climate change among other global change factors. Managers should consider the current social and economic context of the protected area and planning should enhance social and economic benefits, where this is consistent with the conservation goals.

Effective protected areas management requires that the major natural values and associated cultural and ecosystem service values be clearly identified. For IUCN, only those areas where the main objective is conserving nature can be considered protected areas; this can include many areas with other goals and objectives as well, at the same level, but in the case of conflict, nature conservation will be the priority.

The assignment of ecological values should be consistent with IUCN’s protected area management categories. For example, Category 1 and 2 protected areas should identify ecological integrity as a core value as that is the intention of the category. A table of IUCN categories and consistent ecological goals and objectives is given below:

IUCN Category and Key Ecological Purpose

Ecological Goals and objectives Consistent with the Category (Adapted from Dudley et al, 200810)

Category 1A - To conserve regionally, nationally or globally outstanding ecosystems, species (occurrences or aggregations) and/or geodiversity features: these attributes will have been formed mostly or entirely by non-human forces and will be degraded or destroyed when subjected to all but very light human impact.

1. A complete set of expected native species in ecologically significant densities;

2. A full set of expected native ecological communities, largely intact with intact ecological processes;

3. Ecological Integrity*

4. Geological and/or paleontological features

Category Ib: Wilderness areas To protect the long-term ecological integrity of natural areas that are undisturbed by significant human activity.

1. Ecological integrity*

2. Geological and/or paleontological features

Category II: National park - To protect natural biodiversity along with its underlying ecological structure and supporting environmental processes, and to promote education and recreation

1. Ecological integrity*

2. Conservation of high profile species with supporting habitat and supporting ecological processes

3. Geological and/or paleontological features

Category III: Natural monument or feature - To protect specific outstanding natural features and their associated biodiversity and habitats.

1. Species population levels and trends for specific species.

2. Specific natural features.

3. Ecological conditions and processes that support the species or natural feature under management

4. Geological and/or paleontological features

Category IV: Habitat/species management area - To maintain, conserve and restore species and habitats.

1. Species population levels and trends for specific species.

2. Specific habitat area and condition.

3. Ecological conditions and processes that support the species or habitats under management

4. Geological and/or paleontological features

Category V: Protected landscape/ seascape - To protect and sustain important landscapes/seascapes and the associated nature conservation and other values created by interactions with humans through traditional management practices.

1. Landscape/seascape characteristics and pattern

2. Specific species or ecological communities that have evolved in association with cultural management systems.

3. Patterns and intensities of human activities that have been responsible for the unique ecological values.

4. Geological and/or paleontological features

Category VI: Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources - To protect natural ecosystems and use natural resources sustainably, when conservation and sustainable use can be mutually beneficial.

1. Ecological communities and species

2. Traditional and low-impact sustainable use of environmental products and services (typically hunting, grazing, management of natural resources).

3. Ecological processes that are important for the ecological communities and species

4. Geological and/or paleontological features

*See definition of protected area

Additional IUCN guidance on the appropriate considerations for the impact of design and planning Protected Areas can be found in the IUCN Environmental and Social Management System (IUCN ESMS, April 2016).

2.1 IDENTIFY MAJOR SITE VALUES

2.1A The area’s major natural values are identified

2.1B The area’s major ecosystem service values are identified

2.1C The area’s major cultural values are identified

Guidance notes:

A successful ‘Green List’ area must always identify nature conservation values, and the associated cultural and ecosystem service values should also be identified (depending on the PA management category and context).

Nature always refers to biodiversity, at genetic, species and ecosystem level, and often also refers to geodiversity, landform and broader natural values. All goals and objectives for management of the area are identified in accordance with the appropriate IUCN management category.

In this Standard, ‘major’ values are defined as nature and associated ecosystem service and cultural values that the protected area is currently intended to conserve, maintain or enhance.

2.1A. NATURAL VALUES

Major natural values include:

· Biodiversity values (e.g. threatened species, priority habitats or ecosystems)

· Ecological processes

· Landscape and connectivity values

· Geological and geomorphological features

· Paleontological values

· Scenic values and outstanding natural beauty.

2.1B ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUES

Ecosystem services are the benefits that humans derive from ecosystems. Ecosystem services can be categorized as (i) provisioning services (e.g. food, fuel, fibre); (ii) regulating services (e.g. flood retention, water quality, carbon storage); and (iii) supporting services (e.g. nutrient cycling; pollination). Ecosystem service values can be documented using the Protected Area Benefit Assessment Tool[footnoteRef:3] or similar tools. [3: Dudley, N. and S. Stolton (2009) The Protected Area Benefit Assessment Tool: a methodology. Published by WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.]

Ecosystem services are a subset of a much larger set of ecological processes. Collectively humans are part of global ecosystems that include species and processes, that keep all people alive. So, in practical terms, assessing ecosystem services is always a small subset of larger ecological benefits that include oxygen, the global water and carbon cycles, etc. However it often useful to consider a set of direct benefits that protected areas provide to local people and communities.

Provisioning services are products obtained from ecosystems, including, for example, genetic resources, food and fibre, and fresh water. For protected areas, such services may include medicinal plants, fire-wood or building materials for local purposes, depending on the category of the protected area.

Regulating services are benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes, for example, climate regulation, flood water retention.

Supporting services are those that are necessary for the maintenance of other ecosystem services. Some examples include biomass production, production of atmospheric oxygen, soil formation and retention, nutrient cycling, water cycling. In addition, the human health benefits of protected areas for surrounding communities and visitors are now well documented[footnoteRef:4][footnoteRef:5] and should also be considered here. [4: Stolton, S., Dudley, N. (2010) Vital Sites: The contribution of protected areas to human health. A research report by WWF and Equilibrium. Published by WWF.] [5: Parks Victoria (2015) Healthy Parks Healthy People: the state of the evidence 2015. Published by Parks Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.]

2.1C CULTURAL VALUES

Cultural values are the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, and aesthetic experience, and include cultural identity and meaning, knowledge systems, social relations, and aesthetic values.

The Burra Charter[footnoteRef:6] defines cultural values as tangible and non-tangible values that have aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance for past, present or future generations including: [6: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013]

· cultural practices, knowledge, songs, stories

· places or features of cultural significance, sacred sites

· built heritage, art, and relics

· human remains

· natural landforms, flora, fauna or minerals that have a cultural meaning.

Each site may have distinctive cultural values that should be documented in the process of applying this Criterion.

2.2 DESIGN FOR LONG-TERM CONSERVATION OF MAJOR VALUES

The characteristics of the area are sufficient to support the long-term maintenance of the major site values

Guidance notes

The characteristics of the protected area (i.e. size, viability, connectivity, context in the landscape) should be sufficient to maintain the major natural values identified in Criterion 2.1.

If connectivity with other areas or habitats is critical to the maintenance of the major site values of the area proposed for Green Listing, these areas should also be adequately managed to maintain the major natural and cultural values of the area. The area should be managed so it is integrated within the wider landscape and/or seascape. This may occur, for example, through active participation within a national or regional conservation strategy or land-use plan, through managing threats in collaboration with surrounding communities and user groups or through international collaboration and agreements, where relevant. The area may also contribute to an ecologically representative and well-connected system of protected areas. In cases where the conservation of the area’s nominated values is dependent on actions or conditions outside its own management control, the manner in which such actions or conditions will nonetheless be achieved or maintained will require explanation.

In cases where a major site value is a species population, the area should contain habitats that are of sufficient quality and size, or be connected to other suitable areas to conserve the species in the long term.

Management should consider the long term implications of climate change, and other global change factors, on the major site values identified in Criterion 2.1 and identify strategies to guide management of these values in the context of future change.

2.3 UNDERSTAND THREATS AND CHALLENGES TO MAJOR SITE VALUES

Threats/challenges to major site values have been described in sufficient detail to support effective planning and management

Guidance notes

The identification of threats should include all significant current and potential threats to the area’s natural and associated cultural and socio-economic values. Threat analysis should include examination of incompatible activities with the area’s protected status. Threats should be identified in collaboration with stakeholders and experts, and should be understood in detail and accuracy relevant to management.

Threats could be identified using IUCN-CMP threat classification[footnoteRef:7]. Main categories of threats from the threat taxonomy are described below. As some threats will be specific to each jurisdiction, protected area type and area setting and context, any threats not featured the IUCN-CMP threat taxonomy can be identified in the “other” field. Threats may include: [7: Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A. J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart, S., Collen, B., Cox, N., Master, L. L., O’Connor,S. and Wilkie, D. (2008) ‘A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions’, Conservation Biology 22(4): 897–911.]

1.Residential and commercial development within a protected area

2.Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area

3.Energy production and mining within a protected area

4.Transportation and service corridors within a protected area

5.Biological resource use and harm within a protected area

6.Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area

7.Natural system modifications

8.Invasive and other problematic species and genes

9.Pollution entering or generated within protected area

10.Geological events

11.Climate change and severe weather

12.Specific cultural and social threats

13.Other

It should be emphasised that this requirement does not exclude the continuation of activities that are compatible with the protected area’s IUCN categorisation, and with its core objectives. Such activities may include hunting, collecting, recreational uses or other activities at sustainable levels.

Please note that the threats/challenges identified in this criterion should provide the basis for management responses to threats identified in criterion 3.4. Likewise, management responses to threats/challenges identified in 3.4 should link to the threats identified in this criterion.

2.4 UNDERSTAND THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT

The socio-economic context of the area including the positive and negative social and economic impacts of management are understood and considered in site management goals and objectives.

Guidance notes

The establishment and management of a protected or conserved area may have positive and/or negative impacts on rights-holders, stakeholders and the local community, depending on the prevailing socio-economic context. Over time, the type of impact may also change, as conflicts are resolved, new conflicts or when governance is enhanced. Using appropriate tools and approaches[footnoteRef:8], the current socio-economic context of the protected area should be sufficiently well documented and understood to be considered in ongoing planning and management to optimize positive impacts and to minimize negative impacts where possible. [8: Such as Phil Franks and Rob Small (2016) Understanding the social impacts of protected areas: a community perspective. IIED Research Report. IIED, London. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/14661IIED.pdf ]

This includes an understanding of the demographic characteristics of the region, previous uses of the area and the impact of protected area status on:

· cultural, spiritual, historical, and recreational values;

· access (increased or decreased) for rights-holders, stakeholders and the public; and

· economic activity in the surrounding area.

Component 3: EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT

Green List areas are managed effectively

Guidance notes

The IUCN Best Practice Guidelines on Management Effectiveness[footnoteRef:9] defines effective management to include three components: [9: Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. and Courrau, J. (2006). Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. 2nd edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xiv + 105 pp.]

1. Design: Whether the protected area has been designed in such a way that it is capable of maintaining its values over time. This includes (i) The ecological and physical attributes of the protected area that mean that the integrity of natural values can be maintained; and (ii) The way in which the protected area fits within a social and cultural context to minimize negative and promote positive interactions with surrounding communities. (1 (i) is addressed in Component 2 as part of Criterion 2.2 in this Standard and 1 (ii) is addressed in Component 2 as part of Criterion 2.4)

2. Management systems and processes: Whether the management planning systems, resources and processes implemented in the protected area are sufficient and in accordance with accepted and effective management approaches, given the environmental, social and cultural context of the area and projected future climate change. This aspect of effective management is addressed in Component 3 of this Standard.

3. Outcomes: Whether the protected area maintains its values and achieves its goals and objectives over time. This aspect of effective management is addressed in Component 4 of this Standard.

There are multiple tools and methodologies applied to assess the effectiveness of protected and conserved areas. Many of these tools will be able to provide some or all of the information and assessment data required to address the criteria in this component. Supplementary guidance on the convergence with a range of new and existing ‘Protected Area Management Effectiveness’ (PAME) tools, such as the ‘Integrated Management Effectiveness Tool’ (IMET) and the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), and the Criteria within this Standard, will be provided by IUCN, regularly updated, and made available as an annex to this Standard.

3.1 DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN

3.1A PROVIDE CLEAR AND APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS

The site has an up-to-date management plan (or its functional equivalent) which provides a clear explanation of the overall goals and objectives of management (including, explicitly the conservation of the area’s major values and achievement of its social and economic goals and objectives). The strategies and actions specified in plans, policies and procedures are appropriate and sufficient to achieve the planned goals and objectives for the area.

3.1B DEMONSTRATE ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO MANAGE EFFECTIVELY

The key strategies and associated activities that will be implemented to achieve those goals and objectives in the long-term are supported by processes and systems that provide adequate financial and human resources, adequate staff competency, capacity development and training, and appropriate access to equipment and adequate infrastructure, and measures are in place to deal with critical shortfalls.

Guidance notes:

3.1A PROVIDE CLEAR AND APROPRIATE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS

A management plan, or functionally equivalent documentation, describes the goals and objectives of management, linked to the major values identified in Crietrion 2.1, and explains how these goals and objectives are to be achieved.

Green List sites must demonstrate that management of the site is undertaken in accordance with a clear vision based on an understanding of the natural values and related ecosystem service and cultural values of the site, as identified under Criterion 2.1, and other appropriate social, cultural and economic goals and objectives. One approach would be to ensure that the goals and objectives of management are addressed within the management plan (or equivalent) and associated operational planning documentation, supported by evidence showing that the plan is being implemented as described. Plans should demonstrate that management activities address both short term goals and objectives, and also longer-term threats have been considered such as climate change projections for the region. However, other approaches than formal plans, that achieve the same objective would also be acceptable.

The implications of climate change on the natural and/or cultural values in the protected area should be considered and documented, particularly in relation to the management goals and objectives for these values (see Hopkins, et al (2015)[footnoteRef:10] for insight into climate change impacts on common protected area values). The IUCN Best Practice Guidelines on Protected Areas and Climate Change (in prep.) identify the following best practices for setting conservation goals and objectives in the context of climate change: [10: Hopkins, A., McKellar, R., Worboys, G.L. and Good, R. (2015) Climate change and protected areas, in Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M. Kothari, A., Feary, S. and Pulsford, I. (Eds.) Protected Area Governance and Management. pp495-530. ANU Press, Canberra.]

•Manage for change, not only for persistence

•Reconsider goals and objectives, not just strategies

•Adopt forward-looking and climate-informed goals and objectives

•Integrate climate considerations into existing planning

Climate-ready goals and objectives will provide a solid foundation for all elements of protected area planning, governance and management into the future. This will require that trends and changes in conditions are monitored over time, requiring management and governance to communicate with key constituents about the implications of these changes on protected area values and to integrate information into adaptive governance, management and planning (Hopkins et al. 2015).

3.1B DEMONSTRATE ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO MANAGE EFFECTIVELY

This Criterion recognises that protected areas can be successful even if their financial and other resources (understood in this context to mean also capacity) are limited. It is recognised that protected areas will always benefit from additional funding and capacity, and that this therefore should not, in itself, limit their ability to be placed on the Green List. However, protected areas with good financial and human resource systems will have a much higher chance of being effectively managed and achieving conservation success.

Management actions here encompass planning, implementation, stakeholder engagement, communication, infrastructure, research, volunteer programmes, monitoring and evaluation.

Assessment of this Criterion should address issues such as the following:

· Adequate equipment and infrastructure appropriate to the context of the protected area is available and accessible to staff as appropriate to manage the area.

· Equipment and infrastructure are well-maintained and replaced regularly

· The area has sufficient numbers of appropriately trained staff with adequate competences, appropriately deployed and led by an effective management team, to implement all aspects of its management plan.

· Staff are supported, respected and nurtured, and staff development, employment and working conditions, health, safety and welfare are given a high priority by the management authority.

· Mechanisms are in place to recruit and use volunteers, and to partner with other institutions that can provide institutional support.

· The managing organization makes effective use of resources, working in a structured and strategic way with defined goals, established systems and standards, and means for monitoring and improving performance.

· Mechanisms are in place for securing funds (e.g. fundraising for grants, requesting government allocations, setting up trust funds), preparing and managing budgets, and ensuring cost-effective and efficient financial management of the protected area.

· There is no evidence that financial constraints are threatening the capacity of management to achieve the protected area’s goals and objectives.

3.2 MANAGE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

Management can demonstrate clearly that ecological components are being managed to maintain the area’s major natural values and associated ecosystem services.

Guidance notes

Management includes plans and actions to maintain ecosystem processes or simulate natural disturbance regimes where required. This could include, for example, fire management,, maintenance of sedimentation or larval flows in marine systems, maintenance of hydrological regimes, habitat maintenance for native species, ecological restoration where required, management of native species, maintenance of essential ecological linkages within the area and with adjacent habitats and any other management necessary to maintain conservation values of the site.

Effective management of ecological conditions will be enhanced by use of an ecosystem-based approach to management. As defined by the Convention on Biodiversity[footnoteRef:11], “the ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way … [it].. is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization, which encompass the essential structure, processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of many ecosystems.” [11: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) The Ecosystem Approach, (CBD Guidelines) Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 50 pp.]

This criterion does not deal directly with the management of threats” which are addressed in Criterion 3.4 (e.g. invasive alien species management).

3.3 MANAGE WITHIN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE AREA

Management can demonstrate clearly that:

· Rights-holders and stakeholders are recognized and engaged effectively by management, and their interests are fairly and fully considered;

· The socio-economic benefits of the area are recognized, promoted and are being maintained, OR, where such maintenance is incompatible with the conservation of the area’s natural values, any restrictions are designed and implemented in consultation with, and following the principle of free, prior and informed consent of, right-holders and stakeholders.

Guidance notes

This Criterion is concerned with managing to enhance the socio-economic benefits of protected areas in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of the protected area and its management category and does not damage or conflict with the major site values of the protected area.

Socio-economic benefits may include improved access, economic stimulus for local communities, opportunities for recreation, tourism, employment, education and scientific research. The type and magnitude of benefits of a given protected area will vary widely depending on the activities permitted, the relative isolation, and resourcing for the protected area.  The role of the area in providing education, awareness, outreach and instilling value in nature to people, local and visitors and supporting programs should also be considered.

Evidence to support performance on this Criterion could include how the socio-economic context of the protected area is considered and addressed in the protected area’s management plan (or equivalent), and associated operational planning documentation that shows that these aspects of the plan are being implemented as described. However, other approaches that achieve the same objective would be acceptable such as documenting management policies, processes and activities relating to this Criterion.

3.4 MANAGE THREATS

Threats are being actively and effectively responded to, so that their impact is not compromising the maintenance of major site values or the achievement of goals and objectives.

Guidance notes:

The intent of this Criterion is that management should respond to both existing and potential threats whose significance may grow over time.

Threats will have been identified in Criterion 2.3. In this Criterion, management should demonstrate that there are programmes in place to contain or reduce the impacts of these threats on major site values such that the goals and objectives of management are able to be achieved. Evidence may include data on the extent and severity of threats and on threat reduction over time.

3.5 EFFECTIVELY AND FAIRLY ENFORCE LAWS, REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF THE AREA

The application and enforcement of laws, regulations and controls over use must be fairly enforced and not favour particular individuals or groups. The laws, regulations and controls applied to the area are clearly communicated to stakeholders and any changes to these restrictions are made known to affected stakeholders before they are enforced.

Guidance notes:

Controls on use of the area including prohibitions on certain activities and conditions applied to permitted activities should be effectively enforced if they are to prevent undesirable impacts on the area. This means that managers must have adequate capacity to detect potential infringements through patrol and surveillance and then the capacity to prevent or prosecute offences. The broader governance system must have the capacity and the will to support enforcement of these controls through legal or customary means with appropriate sanctions applied to offenders.

3.6 MANAGE ACCESS, RESOURCE USE AND VISITATION

3.6A MANAGE APPROVED ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE AREA

Management of permitted activities within the area (involving direct access to resources and sustainable use) is compatible with and supports the achievement of the area’s conservation goals and objectives while meeting the needs of users, and properly regulating approved activities.

3.6B MANAGE FOR VISITORS AND TOURISM

When permitted, tourism and visitor management are compatible with, and support, the achievement of the area´s goals and objectives

Guidance notes:

3.6A MANAGEMENT OF APPROVED ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE AREA

Approved activities may include sustainable harvesting of natural resources where permitted by law and in accordance with any restrictions and guidelines contained in the site’s management plan or other policies. This could include artisanal fishing in relevant zones, collection of non-timber forest products for local use, and other low-level harvesting of resources for local use. It would also include approved scientific research and other activities regulated by permit.

3.6B MANAGEMENT FOR VISITORS AND TOURISM

Visitor services and facilities meet standards of design, environmental sustainability and safety and are appropriate to the character, values and use of the area. Interpretive, educational and information services for visitors meet appropriate visitor needs and support management. Where access is permitted, consideration has been given to the use of the protected area by people having varied physical ability, and their needs have been adequately and appropriately taken into account, considering the context of the protected area.

The tourism industry within the area is managed to support the Protected Area goals and objectives.

3.7 MEASURE SUCCESS

Monitoring, evaluation and learning provide an objective basis for evaluating success. Monitoring and assessment programs provide data on:

· Whether each of the area’s major values are being successfully protected;

· Level and intensity of threats; and

· Achievement of management goals and objectives.

Guidance notes:

The major site values are previously defined under Criterion 2.1. The definition of ‘objective measures of success’ in this Criterion 3.6 provides the basis for the subsequent assessment of Conservation Outcomes, covered in Pillar 4.

Each of the area’s major values should be assessed against a performance threshold as the basis for determining conservation success in relation to the associated value. Thresholds will rarely be absolute and may be refined as knowledge improves. There should be an explicit process for revising thresholds as new information is received. Thresholds should not be arbitrarily changed to accommodate changes in management performance.

Thresholds can be established many ways, including: values taken from the scientific literature; comparison with past measurements; ecological modelling; values set by legislation or regulation and/or expert consensus. In all cases, the reasons for the selection of the threshold should be documented as part of the monitoring program. If the scientific information needed to establish threshold is lacking or inadequate, park managers can rely on general ecological concepts, comparisons to other similar systems, well-informed expert opinion, or failing that, the park managers’ best estimate to determine a “credible first iteration” of the thresholds.

The specific model for defining and measuring performance thresholds through the specification of ‘Conservation Targets’, and their associated key ecological attributes with acceptable ranges of variation for those attributes, as described in Parrish et al (2003)[footnoteRef:12] provides one acceptable methodology for meeting this Criterion. However, adoption of this specific methodology is not a requirement. Any approach that meets the requirements of the Criterion would also be acceptable. [12: Parrish, J. D., Braun, D. P. & Unnasch, R. S. 2003. Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. Bioscience, 53, 851-860.]

Development of thresholds is an inherent part of the site’s monitoring program. Guidance on socio-economic thresholds is given under Component 4.

Component 4: SUCCESSFUL CONSERVATION OUTCOMES

Green List sites demonstrate the successful long-term conservation of natural values, and associated cultural and ecosystem service values; as well as the achievement of socio-economic goals and objectives.

Guidance notes:

This Component is concerned with demonstrating that the area is achieving its goals and objectives for conserving the natural and associated cultural and ecosystem service values, and meeting the socio-economic goals and objectives identified in Component 2. Measurement and assessment of outcomes is the only way to prove that protected areas are conserving their values. The measurement and assessment of protected area outcomes needs to be transparent, documented, and repeatable. Outcomes should be measured, and then assessed against a performance threshold identified in Criterion 3.7.

Measurement and assessment of protected area outcomes should be done as part of a site’s monitoring program. The measurement and assessment should be conducted using appropriate science, including expert opinion, and should also take advantage of available traditional and local knowledge. The monitoring system should retain records of the goals and objectives of the programme in the long term, including the monitoring methods, raw data, metadata, methods of analysis, and results. While it is preferable to have quantifiable data on outcomes, where these are not available, expert consensus may be used. Documentation of expert consensus should include information on the experts, their conclusions on the outcomes, and their specific reasons for coming to their conclusions.

Protected area managers should make information related to the monitoring and assessment of conservation outcomes available to rights-holders and stakeholders, and to civil society and the scientific community (see Criterion 1.3) except in cases where the sharing of the information would adversely impact conservation outcomes or the information is culturally sensitive, or commercially confidential.

4.1: DEMONSTRATE CONSERVATION OF MAJOR NATURAL VALUES

The area is meeting or exceeding its performance thresholds for nature conservation, consistent with its IUCN protected area management category.

Guidance notes:

For IUCN Protected Areas, nature always refers to biodiversity, at the genetic, species and ecosystem level, and often also refers to geodiversity, landform and broader natural values.

Natural values and their associated goals and objectives will be for one or more of the following: (i) intact ecosystems (ecological integrity); (ii) specific species; (iii) specific ecological communities or habitats; (iv) ecological features; (v) ecological processes; (vi) geological features; and (vii) palaeontological features (fossils etc.). Many protected areas also are managed for outstanding scenic values and natural beauty which are an inherent part of their ecological and geological features and can be evaluated in this context. Performance thresholds should be measurable and specific to the protected area location and the type of feature being measured. Refer to Criterion 2.1 for determination of the goals and objectives for natural values and to Criterion 3.7 for the development of thresholds.

Measurement of ecological outcomes must be appropriate to the ecological outcomes in question. For guidance on monitoring protected area goals and objectives, practitioners can refer to: IUCN’s Protected Area Governance and Management book[footnoteRef:13]. [13: G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary and I. Pulsford (eds) (2015). Protected Area Governance and Management, ANU Press, Canberra. http://press.anu.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/WHOLE1.pdf]

Criterion 4.2: DEMONSTRATE CONSERVATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

The area is maintaining the provision of its major ecosystem service values.

Guidance Notes:

This Criterion measures the goals and objectives identified in Criterion 2.1 for ecosystem service values.

Protected areas managers should take advantage of a range of online tools to assess ecosystem services (see examples below):

TESSA - http://www.conservation.cam.ac.uk/resource/journal-articles/tessa-toolkit-rapid-assessment-ecosystem-services-sites-biodiversity

InVEST – http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest

Where communities and protected areas managers have identified specific ecosystem services as values of the protected area, they should be measured and assessed as part of the protected area’s monitoring system.

4.3 DEMONSTRATE CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL VALUES

The area is maintaining and providing for the persistence of major cultural values.

Guidance Notes:

This Criterion measures the goals and objectives identified in Criterion 2.1 for cultural values.

Cultural values are the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, and aesthetic experience, including, for example, cultural identity and meaning, knowledge systems, social relations, and aesthetic values.

A range of cultural values are possible, including conservation of built heritage, protection and access to sacred sites and the ability to practice cultural traditions. Measurement systems must be appropriate to the value in question. For built heritage, there should be a condition assessment of the structure or object. For other cultural values, measurement systems and thresholds should be developed in collaboration with the people and communities who hold the cultural value.

4.4 ACHIEVE SOCIO- ECONOMIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The area is meeting or exceeding its performance thresholds for social and economic goals and objectives.

Guidance notes:

Socio- economic goals are often established by protected area managers in recognition of the benefits and impacts associated with the protection of the site. These goals and objectives encompass recreation and tourism, and include social and economic goals such as employment and regional economic development, as described in Criterion 3.3.

Socio-economic goals are associated with the conservation of a site’s natural values, as well as the associated cultural and ecosystem service values. For the purposes of this Criterion, they are distinguished from the natural values of the protected areas, but are recognized as important tangible benefits and impacts of conservation. When the objectives are to share benefits equitably, considering the needs of local communities, this benefit should be measured.

Socio-economic goals and objectives should include the impact of the protected areas on local communities and assess whether management has made a meaningful effort to mitigate negative impacts and share benefits equitably. There are several categories of social and economic goals and objectives to consider, including 1) recreational; 2) economic benefits; and 3) access; and 4) governance vitality.

Setting goals for a site’s governance vitality should seek to ensure that the governance of the site is adaptive to emerging threats, including climate change. This may include assessing the characteristics of adaptive governance, such as 1) linking monitoring to management; 2) scoping of emerging threats and 3) ensuring meaningful linkages with relevant organizations and communities.

Social and economic goals and objectives should be measured and assessed as part of the site’s monitoring system.

DEFINITIONS:

Term

Definition

Actors

Participants in a process

Adaptive management

Adaptive management is based on a circular – rather than a linear – management process, which allows information concerning the past to feed back into and improve the way management is conducted in future. Evaluation helps management to adapt and improve through a learning process.

Civil Society

Wide array of non-governmental and not for profit individuals and organisations that have a presence in public life expressing the interests and values of their members.

Component

A high level organizing principle of the GLPCA Standard. Each Component consists of a set of Criteria and their associated Indicators and suggested Means of Verification.

Conserved Area

A definition of conserved area is being considered by the WCPA Task Force on Other Effective Area based Conservation Measures. It is the intention of this standard to include conserved areas once this definition and associated criteria are agreed upon.

Criteria

Each of the GLPA Standard’s four pillars is associated with a number of Criteria. Criteria are the globally consistent requirements that PAs must meet in order to be Green Listed. The Criteria are not designed for direct assessment in the field. Each Criterion is associated with a number of generic Indicators that detail the specific requirements that must be met to demonstrate conformity with that Criterion.

Ecological Integrity

A condition characterized by large areas with a high degree of intactness, complete or near-complete native faunal and floral assemblages, retaining intact predator-prey systems and supporting ecological processes.

Equitable Governance

IUCN has defined 5 broad principles for good governance of protected areas (elsewhere described as equitable management or equitable governance):

· Legitimacy and Voice

· Direction

· Performance

· Accountability

· Fairness and Rights

These principles should be viewed as a benchmark and applied flexibly according to context, although some relate to human rights for which international standards are progressively codified.

IIED[footnoteRef:14] describe Equitable Governance in Protected Areas in terms of three dimensions: [14: Advancing Equity in Protected Area Conservation. IIED Briefing Note, Feb 2016 http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/17344IIED.pdf]

· Recognition: acknowledging and respecting the legitimacy of rights, values, interests, priorities and human dignity

· Procedure: the processes by which decisions are made, whether these relate to PA management, resolving disputes, or identifying and assessing the costs and benefits associated with PAs

· Distribution: distributive equity is about how costs are distributed and benefits are shared among stakeholders

Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC)

There is no internationally agreed definition of FPIC. However, the hallmarks of FPIC are commonly recognized as the following:

(i) The rights-holders have an inalienable right to participate in decision-making and to give or withhold consent[footnoteRef:15] without coercion, intimidation or manipulation; [15: In the GLPA Standard, consent is defined as “Free, prior, and informed consent of affected indigenous and local communities is a requirement of ILO Convention 169 and the Convention on Biological Diversity 8(j), as recognized for protected areas by the IUCN Durban Action Plan.” NB: per this definition, the term ‘consent’ and ‘FPIC’ are interchangeable.]

(ii) Agreement with rights-holders on activities that affect their legal and/or customary rights prior to commencing those activities; and

(iii) The foundation of the rights-holders’ consent is an understanding of the full range of issues implicated by the activity or decision.[footnoteRef:16] [16: Based on Colchester, M. and Mackay, F. 2004. In Search of Middle Ground: Indigenous Peoples, Collective Representation and the Right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Forest Peoples Programme. pp. 8-14.]

Point a) implies that consent should be free. Point b) stresses that consent should be sought sufficiently in advance of any authorization or commencement of activities and that respect is shown for time requirements of indigenous consultation and consensus processes[footnoteRef:17]. Point c) implies that information is provide that covers all aspects of the proposed project or activity. The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues defines ‘informed’ as including the following aspects (at a minimum): [17: Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues: Report of the International workshop on Methodologies regarding free, prior, and informed consent and Indigenous Peoples.]

(i) The nature, size, pace, reversibility and scope of any proposed project or activity;

(ii) The reason(s) for or purposes(s) of the project and/or activity;

(iii) The duration or the above;

(iv) The locality of areas that will be affected;

(v) A preliminary assessment of the likely economic, social, cultural and environmental impact, including potential risks and fair and equitable benefit-sharing in a context that respects the precautionary principle;

(vi) Personnel likely to be involved in the execution of the proposed project (including Indigenous Peoples, private sector staff, research institutions, government employees and others);

(vii) Procedures that the project may entail.

Identifying Indigenous Peoples

The identification of those rights-holders may sometimes be difficult. The most important aspect to consider when assessing if FPIC is a requirement is the presence of a group or groups or individuals who self-identify as Indigenous Peoples and who have legal or customary rights that should be recognized. The World Bank’s Operational Manual on Indigenous Peoples defines as follows, “For purposes of this policy, the term “Indigenous Peoples” is used in a generic sense to refer to a distinct, vulnerable, social and cultural group [of any size] possessing the following characteristics in varying degrees:

(a) self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identity by others;

(b) collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories7 

(c) customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and

(d) an indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region.”

Governance

IUCN has defined GOVERNANCE as: the interactions among structures, processes and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken, and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say in the management of natural resources - including biodiversity conservation (IUCN RESWCC3.012).

Governance vitality

A governance setting that is able to learn, evolve and meet its role and responsibilities ways that are timely, intelligent, appropriate and satisfactory for everyone concerned. The vitality of a governance setting is related to being:

· well integrated and functionally connected; that is, having abundant, meaningful and systemic interactions with a variety of actors at various levels in society and across sectors (including those actors who render decisions effective)

· adaptive; that is, flexible, reflective, engaged in knowledge exchange, dialogue and debate, capable of learning from experience, capable of weighing options and taking prompt and meaningful decisions even under challenging circumstances

· wise; that is, having agreed to take decisions of meaningful scope (for example, regarding the size and socioecological coherence of the unit to manage, the number of actors to involve); being motivated by the common good

· innovative and creative; that is open to new ideas, able to reinvent and renew itself as a living system does, providing innovative solutions, supporting the emergence of new rules and norms, responding positively to change and continuing to develop

· empowered; that is, self-conscious and self-directed, capable of demonstrating leadership responses to emerging environmental conditions, problems and opportunities; self-disciplined and self-critical

Indicators

A quantitative or qualitative variable which can be measured or described, and which provides a means of judging whether a PA complies with the requirements of a Criterion. Indicators and the associated thresholds thereby define the requirements for successful PA management at the jurisdictional level and are the primary basis of assessment for the GLPCA.

IUCN Protected Area Governance Types

While governance regimes for protected areas vary greatly around the world, IUCN and the CBD distinguish four broad governance types:

· Governance by government (at various levels and possibly combining various institutions)

· Governance by various rights-holders and stakeholders together (shared governance)

· Governance by private individuals and organisations

· Governance by indigenous peoples and/or local communities

IUCN Protected Area Management Categories

There are six IUCN protected area categories. The common definition of a protected area (see above) implies a common set of objectives for all protected areas; the categories in turn define differences in management approaches.

Category Ia: Strict nature reserve: strictly protected areas set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly geological/geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values. Such protected areas can serve as indispensable reference areas for scientific research and monitoring.

Category Ib: Wilderness area: areas that are usually large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, which are protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition.

Category II: National park: areas that are large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities.

Category III: Natural monument or feature: areas that are set aside to protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, seamount, submarine cavern, geological feature such as a cave or even a living feature such as an ancient grove. They are generally quite small protected areas and often have high visitor value.

Category IV: Habitat/species management area: areas that aim to protect particular species or habitats and management reflects this priority. Many category IV protected areas will need regular, active interventions to address the requirements of particular species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category.

Category V: Protected landscape/seascape: area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values.

Category VI: Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources: areas that conserve ecosystems and habitats, together with associated cultural values and traditional natural resource management systems. They are generally large, with most of the area in a natural condition, where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource management and where low-level non-industrial use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation is seen as one of the main aims of the area.

Local community

A local community is a human group sharing a territory and involved in different but related aspects of livelihoods—such as managing natural resources held as ‘commons’, developing productive technologies and practices, and producing knowledge and culture. We speak of a local community when its members are likely to have face-to-face encounters and/or mutual influences in their daily life—whether they are permanently settled or mobile. A community’s sense of identity and cultural characteristics are often shared, although multiple ethnic groups can be found in the same community. A local community can only be self-identified.

Long-term

Implies that that the establishment of protected areas is, for practical purposes, in perpetuity. It is understood, of course, that nothing lasts forever, but protected areas are established for the long-term, and this is understood to be for many decades or centuries.

Means of Verification

A potential source of information that would allow an assessor evaluate compliance with an Indicator. Means of Verification help provide clarity to PA managers and assessors but are not normative

Participation

Active involvement in decision making of those with an interest in, or who are affected by important decisions.

Protected Area

The IUCN defines a protected area as “A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values[footnoteRef:18]. [18: Dudley, N (Editor) 2008).Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.]

Protected Area Establishment

The process of creating an IUCN protected area. For the establishment of an effective protected area it is essential to have at least a basic understanding of an area’s biodiversity features, including key species and ecosystems, their conservation status and the conservation actions required to maintain or improve their status. Information on the area’s global or national irreplaceability for the conservation of specific biodiversity features, if available, can also help guide protected area establishment. It is also important to understand the human us past and present human use of the area, the local governance systems, and who might be impacted by the establishment of the protected area.

Protected Area Management Effectiveness (PAME)

Management effectiveness evaluation is defined as the assessment of how well protected areas are being managed – primarily the extent to which management is protecting values and achieving goals and objectives. The term management effectiveness reflects three main ‘themes’ in protected area management:

(i) Design issues relating to both individual sites and protected area; (ii) systems adequacy and appropriateness of management systems and processes; and (iii) delivery of protected area goals and objectives including conservation of values.

Protected Area Management Plan

A Management Plan is a document which sets out the management approach and goals and objectives, together with a framework for decision-making, to apply in the protected area over a given period of time. Plans may be more or less prescriptive, depending upon the purpose for which they are to be used and the legal requirements to be met. The process of planning, the management objectives for the plan and the standards to apply will usually be established in legislation or otherwise set down for protected area planners.

Protected Area Values

Major site values

· Natural values - In the context of protected areas, nature always refers to biodiversity, at the genetic, species and ecosystem level, and often also refers to geodiversity, landform and broader natural values. The conservation of Biodiversity requires conservation of supporting ecological processes.

Associated Values

· Ecosystem service values – Refers to ecosystem services that are related to but do not interfere with the aim of nature conservation. These can include provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as regulation of floods, drought, land degradation, and disease; supporting services such as soil formation, nutrient cycling; and cultural services such as human health benefits, recreational, spiritual, religious and other non-material benefits.

· Cultural Values - Values including scared sites, the ability to practice cultural traditions and the protection of built heritage. These includes those that do not interfere with the protected area’s conservation outcome (all cultural values in a protected area should meet this criterion), including in particular: those that contribute to conservation outcomes (e.g., traditional management practices on which key species have become reliant); and those that are themselves under threat.

Socioeconomic goals and objectives

· The area may have social and economic goals and objectives that relate to benefits conferred to people and communities from the presence of a protected area. These may include equitable and just access to benefits and decision-making, based on the inherent understanding that good conservation and a just world are inseparable parts of the same solution. Social aspects include benefit sharing, access, employment, education, scientific research or contributing to regional economies. The type and magnitude of benefit for a given protected area will vary widely depending on the purpose, relative isolation and resourcing for the protected area.

Rights-holders

Actors that are socially endowed with legal or customary rights with respect to land, water and natural resources.

Stakeholders

Individuals or organizations who possess direct or indirect interests and concerns about the site, but do not necessarily enjoy a legally or customary entitlements.

Standard

The GLPCA Standard developed on behalf of and approved by IUCN for the purpose of recognizing, benchmarking, motivating and incentivizing successful PA management worldwide.

Threats to Protected Area Values

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has defined a threat to a protected area as “any human activity or related process that has a negative impact on key biodiversity features, ecological processes or cultural assets within a protected area”. Threats to protected areas may also arise from natural causes and events such as natural fires, earthquakes, floods, and so on. Threats jeopardise the protected area’s values and are closely linked to them. Therefore, they are very diverse in nature and what may be a threat somewhere may not be seen as such in another protected area or may evolve through time and go on to become a threat. It is difficult to establish a comprehensive global list of threats to protected areas, although various threat assessment frameworks have classified and assessed threats to protected areas, biodiversity and ecosystems

Traditional Knowledge

The knowledge, know-how, skills and practices that are developed, sustained and passed on from generation to generation within a community, often forming part of its cultural or spiritual identity.

COMMITMENT

Basic data submitted

CANDIDATE

Must demonstrate strong ‘outlook’ and potential for success

NOMINATION

Commit to Standard

Then, prepare full nomination

Prepare candidacy-level evidence

Stakeholder input

Demonstrate conservation outcomes

IUCN GLPCA Panel consider PA for ‘Green List’

Seek approval as ‘Candidate’

Address challenges

Compile all supporting evidence and documents

Independent evaluation