Slide # 1

Quick guide for management

effectiveness evaluation in Med MPAs

First results of the selection and

application of the indicators for a

quick evaluation of management

effectiveness

The MedPAN North project is cofunded by the European Regional Development Fund.

COMPONENT 3 : INNOVATIVE ASPECTS OF MPA MANAGEMENT

ACTIVITY 3.1.1. : Guidebook « Evaluation of MPA management effectiveness »

Slide # 2

The MedPAN North project (2010 – 2013)

A European project coordinated by WWF-France

funded by Programme Med

12 partners and 6 European countries

Over 20 marine protected areas working together…

to improve management effectiveness.

France

Greece

Italy

Malta

Slovenia

Spain

Slide # 3

The objective is to develop a simplified

toolkit adapted to the Mediterranean

context for MPA managers willing to

assess the effectiveness of their

management.

• Phase 1: definition of a simplify set of

indicators for assessing the management

effectiveness adapted to the

Mediterranean context and shared with

the managers;

• Phase 2: use of the indicators to assess

the management effectiveness of the

MPAs partners of the project in order to

obtain iniformation and feedbacks to

revise and better focus the list of

indicators;

• Phase 3: drafting of a guidebook with the

definition of the indicators, their

methodology of application and the

presence of case studies to better

explain the tool.

OBJECTIVE:

Slide # 4

MAIN STEPS

• Literature review from IUCN WWF “How is your MPA doing?”, the Natura 2000

directives, the EMAS Protocol, ISO, SPAMI and other sources

– Guidebook IUCN-WWF “How is your MPA doing?” (Pomeroy et al. 2004)

– Guidebook of the project Federparchi – WWF Italia “Valutazione Valutazione dell’efficacia di

gestione delle Aree Marine Protette Italiane” (MATTM, 2008)

– EMAS III (Reg. CE 1221/2009)

– Selection criteria for the SPAMI areas

– Report on MEE of Port-Cros NP (AA.VV., 2007)

– Report on MEE of “Posidonies du Cap d’Agde” Natura 2000 site (ADENA, 2009)

– Report on MEE of Miramare MPA , Torre Guaceto MPA, Sinis MPA, Ciclopi MPA and Secche di

Tor Paterno MPA – Project MEI – Management Effectiveness Italia (MATTM, 2008)

– ...

• Preparation of a list of proposed indicators (biological, physical, social, economical and

governance indicators) with description, type of measure needed, interpretation

• Submission of the proposed list to the partners for a first revision and to a broader group

of MPA managers for a final revision

• Preparation of a scorecard in excel format and of a report template to be used by

partners for evaluate the ME

Slide # 5

Pr Type N Key Indicators for MPA assessment Category

1 MEE 1 - Existence of legislation on MPAs Legislation & Management

1 MEE 2 - Existence of a functional management body Legislation & Management

1 MEE 3 - Existence of an updated management plan Legislation & Management

1 MEE 4 - Financial resources allocated to the MPA Legislation & Management

1 MEE 5 - Patrol and regulation enforcement Pressures

1 ECO 1 - Seawater quality Pressures

1 ECO 2 - Focal habitats` conservation condition Features of interest

1 ECO 3 - Focal species abundance and population structure Features of interest

1 MEE 6 - Management of fishing effort Pressures

1 ECO 4 - Action on alien invasive species Pressures

1 MEE 7 - Existence of outreach activities Communication and Outreach

1 MEE 8 - Management of visitors presence Pressures

2 MEE 9 - Networking and training Communication and Outreach

2 MEE 10 - Coordination with stakeholders and planners Legislation & Management

2 MEE 11 - Status of focal physical, cultural and spiritual features Features of interest

2 ECO 5 - Climate change awareness and actions Pressures

2 MEE 12 - Alternative Livelihoods and/or Income Generating Activities Features of interest

2 MEE 13 - Local perception of the MPA Features of interest

Slide # 6

Slide # 7

ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS OBTAINED BY 6 TEST MPAs

•7 MPAs applied the list of indicators to evaluate its own management effectiveness

•1 Slovenian MPA (Strunjan)

•2 Spanish (Catalan) MPAs (Cap de Creus and Medes Islands)

•4 Italians MPAs (Cinque Terre, Miramare, Tavolara, Torre Guaceto)

The analysis of the data obtained has been done only on 6 MPAs works since the data from Medes Islands

arrived too late. They will be inserted in the future analysis .

Slide # 8

Slide # 9

General description of the MPA

Slide # 10

General description of the MPA

Surface area 2.227 ha

Dephts Max depth 50 mt

Geographical position 40°42'56.37"N 17°47'48.99"E

Zoning Zone A (no use zone)

Zone B General reserve

Zone C Partial reserve

Slide # 11

year 2012

Priority Name of the indicator Total score Additional score

1 Existence of legislation on MPAs 1 1 x

1 Existence of a functional management body 6

x

1 Existence of a updated management plan 4

x

1 Financial resources allocated to the MPA 4 x

1 Patrol and Regulation enforcement 6 1 x

1 Seawater quality 1 1 x

1 Focal habitats´ conservation condition UI 1 x

1 Focal species abundance and population structure 3 4 x

1 Management of fishing effort 3 3 x

1 Action on alien invasive species 1 0 x

1 Existence of outreach activities 3 1 x

1 Management of visitors presence 1 2 x

2 Networking and training 2 2 x

2 Coordination with stakeholders and planners 3 1 x

2 Status of focal physical, cultural and spiritual features 0 N.E

2 Climate change awareness and actions 0 N.E

2 Alternative Livelihoods and/or Income Generating Activities

(AL/IGA) 0 0 N.E

2 Local perception of the MPA 0 0 N.E

Slide # 12

Slide # 13

General description of the MPA

Slide # 14

Slide # 15

ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS OBTAINED BY 6 TEST MPAs

12 out of 18 indicators were tested by all the 6 MPAs

11 of the 12 indicators measured by everyone were of priority 1. The only other priority 1 that is missing is

“Management of fishing effort” that wasn’t measured by Miramare MPA since fishing is not allowed inside

the MPA’s boundaries, so the indicator was Not Applicable in this case.

The less measured indicators resulted to be :

“Status of focal physical, cultural and spiritual features” evaluated by 3 MPAs out of 6,

“Alternative Livelihoods and/or Income Generating Activities (AL/IGA)” and “Local perception of

the MPA” by 2 out of 6.

All these indicators are of priority 2. The last two are the most difficult to measure in term of

time and efforts.

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

5 5 5

3

2 2

Legi

slat

ion

on M

PAs

Funct

iona

l M'nt b

ody

Upd

ated

M'nt p

lan

Finan

cial re

sour

ces

Patro

l and

Reg

ulatio

n

Seawat

er q

uality

Focal h

abita

ts ́c

ons

Focal s

pecies

abu

nd

Action o

n AIS

Out

reac

h act

ivit ies

Visito

rs p

rese

nce

Net

wor

king

Coo

rd s

take

h/plann

ers

M'nt f

ishing

effo

rt

CC a

war

enes

s

Physica

l, cu

ltura

l fea

ture

s

Altern

ative

Live

lihoo

ds

Loca

l per

cept

ion

Slide # 16

COMPARISON AMONG RESULTS OBTAINED BY 6 TEST MPAs

CA

P D

E

CR

EU

S

5 T

ER

RE

MIR

AM

AR

E

ST

RU

NJA

N

TA

VO

LA

RA

TO

RR

E

GU

AC

ET

O

TOTAL

Name of the indicatorTotal

score

Total

score

Total

score

Total

score

Total

score

Total

score

Total

score

Existence of legislation on MPAs 6 0 0 0

Seawater quality 6 0 0 0

Patrol and Regulation enforcement 4 2 0 0

Focal habitats´ conservation condition 1 5 0 0

Focal species abundance and population

structure3 2 1 0

Existence of outreach activities 2 3 1 0

Networking and training 1 3 2 0

Existence of a functional management body 4 1 0 1

Management of visitors presence 4 1 0 1

Action on alien invasive species 2 3 0 1

Existence of a updated management plan 0 4 0 2

Financial resources allocated to the MPA 0 2 2 2

Management of fishing effort N.A. 2 2 0 1

Coordination with stakeholders and planners N.E. 1 1 1 2

Climate change awareness and actions N.E 1 1 1 2

Status of focal physical, cultural and spiritual

featuresN.E N.E. N.E 1 2 0 0

Alternative Livelihoods and/or Income

Generating Activities (AL/IGA)N.E N.A. N.E N.E 1 1 0 0

Local perception of the MPA N.E N.E. N.E N.E 0 1 1 0

Slide # 17

THE BEST...

•best score with the maximum result coded in blue for all the 6 MPAs for “Existence of legislation on MPAs”

and “Seawater quality”.

•the 6 MPAs represent three European Countries, Italy, Slovenia and Spain: in all these 3 Country the

legislation addresses MPAs specifically exists (be it local, regional, national or international). The laws

currently in force specify MPAs designation and management criteria.

•the quality of the seawater seems to be under control in all the 6 MPAs with the principal chemical and

physical parameters under the reference levels.

•“Patrol and Regulation enforcement” seems not to give problems to MPAs with 4 blue and 2 green

scores.

•there is an effective and regular surveillance of the 6 MPAs territories

•high scores also for “Focal habitats´ conservation condition” and for “Focal species abundance and

population structure”

•consequent quite favourable status of the habitats considered focal for each MPA and for the focal

species. Some problems only in Strunjan MPA where a list of focal species exists, but a monitoring

programme is not yet arranged.

•“Existence of outreach activities” scores blue and green for 5 MPAs.

•education and interpretation plans exist, there are informative tools (panels and leaflets), there is

dedicated personnel and activities occurred on the sites throughout the year. Some problems is Strunjan

without dedicated personnel and plans.

Slide # 18

THE WORST...

•“Existence of an updated management plan” shows a clear difference between the group of the Italian

MPAs (green code) and the other 2 MPAs (red code score).

•For the 4 Italians MPAs, the indicator scores the best thanks to the ministerial project “ISEA” that

supported the MPAs in the drafting of a standardised written management plan between 2011 and

2012.

•Strunjan has not yet a management plan and for the Cap de Creus MPA it is in its process of

approval by the Generalitat de Catalunya.

•“Financial resources allocated to the MPA” obtained more negative that positive scores.

•Only for Strunjan and Torre Guaceto the financial resources allocated are adequate to comply

missions and objectives of the MPA.

•Problems are highlighted for all the MPAs for next years as financements are decreasing yearly and

cashed later during the year: this implies decreased activities.

•“Climate change awareness and actions” wasn’t evaluated by Torre Guaceto and scores 2 red colour

values, 1 yellow and 2 green

•in Cap de Creus and Cinque Terre only sporadic studies on sea-water temperature or particular

species are performed.

•in Strunjan awareness-raising activities will be organised in future.

•in Miramare, and Tavolara specific monitoring activities on CC are defined in their management plan

and are taking place regularly.

•“Coordination with stakeholders and planners” shows the inconsistency between the management

plans of Cinque Terre, Cap de Creus and Strunjan with the local plans on ICZM.

Slide # 19

THE LESS MEASURED...

•“Status of focal physical, cultural and spiritual features” was evaluated only by 3 out of the 6 MPAs where

the conservation status is considered equal or better to the previous assessment.

•“Alternative Livelihoods and/or Income Generating Activities (AL/IGA)” was evaluated only by 2 MPAs

(Cap de Creus and Strunjan) where the management body has knowledge on activities that generate

incomes and the trend is compatible with conservation.

•“Local perception of the MPA” was evaluated by Strunjan where the Management Body is constantly in

touch with the locals that are informed of the meaning of MPA and by Cap de Creus where the

Management Body has no knowledge on if local people is aware on what are the opportunities and

constraints associated with the MPA.

Slide # 20

Name of the indicatorTotal

score

Additiona

l score

Total

score

Additiona

l score

Total

score

Additiona

l score

Total

score

Additiona

l score

Total

score

Additiona

l score

Total

score

Additiona

l score

Existence of legislation on MPAs

Existence of a functional management body

Existence of a updated management plan

Financial resources allocated to the MPA

Patrol and Regulation enforcement

Seawater quality

Focal habitats´ conservation condition

Focal species abundance and population

structure

Management of fishing effort N.A.

Action on alien invasive species

Existence of outreach activities

Management of visitors presence

Networking and training

Coordination with stakeholders and planners N.E.

Status of focal physical, cultural and spiritual

featuresN.E N.E. N.E

Climate change awareness and actions N.E

Alternative Livelihoods and/or Income

Generating Activities (AL/IGA)N.E N.A. N.E N.E

Local perception of the MPA N.E N.E. N.E N.E

TAVOLARA TORRE GUACETOCAP DE CREUS 5 TERRE MIRAMARE STRUNJAN

Slide # 21

THE MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS

•a multivariate analysis of data has been performed to take into account the results of “Total score” and

“Additional score” for each indicator.

•it aims to find similarities on the use of the indicators, grouping the ones that obtained similar scores

(total+additional).

•a data matrix was created with the 18 indicators in rows and the frequency of the scores marked by the 6

test MPAs divided in 4 colums (blu, green, yellow and red code score). Additional and Total score frequency

were added.

blue green yellow red

Legislation_on_MPAs 6 5 0 1

Mng_body 4 1 0 1

Updated_Mntplan 0 4 0 2

Financial_resources 0 2 2 2

Patrol 6 5 0 1

Seawater 6 0 2 4

Focal_habitats 1 10 0 1

Focal_species 5 5 1 1

Fishing_effort 5 3 0 1

Invasive_species 2 4 1 5

Outreach_activities 2 7 1 2

Visitors_presence 5 5 1 1

Networking 4 4 3 1

Stakeholders_and_planners 1 5 1 3

Spitual_features 1 2 0 0

Climate_change 1 1 1 2

Alternative_Livelihoods 1 1 2 0

Local_perception 0 1 1 2

Slide # 22

nMDS and CLUSTER ANALYSIS

•non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (nMDS) routine were used to find dissimilarities among indicators that

can be clearly graphically represented in a multidimensional space. More closer are two points on the plot

and more similar (or better less dissimilar) they are. Correlation measure, level of stress = 0,11

•Cluster analysis is a method for combining similar object into groups (clusters) displayed in a dendrogram.

The equation of distance used was the Correlation measure.

•colour code is the same used for the indicators scorecard: blue for best score, green for good score,

yellow for insufficient situation, red for the worst situation.

Slide # 23

CONCLUSIONS

•the substantial majority of indicators that obtained high score suggest that the 6 test MPAs are generally

speaking well managed.

•AIS, CC and Financial Resources are in the red group of indicators. Both this two indicators facing issues

that not strictly depend by the managers capacity. International crisis and lack of funds from governmental

spending reviews are on the agenda and actions to face the threat of alien species are difficult to carry on

and not always successful.

•indicators that reached the worst score or that were not possible to evaluate this year should represent a

base on which build the future management activities.

•indicators of priority 1 could be considered of accessible measurement since they were evaluated by all

the 6 MPAs.

•some difficulties in the measure of the indicators of priority 2 that consider aspects not always of primary

importance and for this reason a lack of data is evidenced.

•the tool can be considered as a good starting baseline that could be tested also by the recent established

MPAs.

•It is of outstanding importance that the tool, its results and future actions should be shared among the MPA

staff and should not remain the exercise work of few people.

Slide # 24

UTILITY OF THE USE OF INDICATORS

CAP DE CREUS: While indicators are well selected and their quantification (scores) attempts to

summarize the main challenges of the MPA (management, control, monitoring, etc.), the practical utility of

this system is unclear because both input and output information are complex for the management of a

specific MPA. Surely indicators will be useful for analysis and integrated management of all MPAs

(MedPAN managers) not for a single Reserve. Thus, the indicators may be used to carry out joint actions

between MPAs that have similar problems, from a global perspective

CINQUE TERRE: One of the main features of the proposed indicators is that they provide a global

perspective over each MPA management activity. Moreover, such method consent a more direct

comparison of different MPAs.

STRUNJAN: The indicators encompass the great majority of the basic elements of an MPA as well as the

needed activities performed within the MPA and towards its social environment. Being so, it is our opinion

that the whole set of indicators represents a very good basis for the evaluation of the management

efficiency of an MPA

TAVOLARA: As we’ve seen in other experiences the usefulness of indicators is high, even more with the

MedPan Project’s set. They seem well balanced and covered all MPA’s work areas.

Slide # 25

DIFFICULTIES IN THE APPLICATION OF THE INDICATORS

CAP DE CREUS: The principal problem, in the framework of the economic crisis in Spain and Catalonia, is

the lack of regional and national economic contribution to accomplish, especially at the level of human

resources.

CINQUE TERRE: One of the main problems encountered when applying the indicators was due to legal

issues that involve the Cinque Terre MPA for two years. During this period just the ordinary administration

was carried on. Internal executive regulation of the organization still lacks approval from the competent

ministry.

STRUNJAN: Some indicators might be difficult to implement or monitor, due also to the nature and

organization of the specific MPA and the availability of personnel, funds (climate change, fishing effort, alien

invasive species, …)

TAVOLARA: The main difficulty detected is related to the organization of the working structure

(framework?). The evaluation procedure, although comprehensive and well organized, is not very flexible

respect to reality that instead is characterized by a high organizational and operational flexibility.

Slide # 26

USE OF THIS TOOL IN THE FUTURE

CAP DE CREUS: Its use depends on sufficient funding for MPAs, the existence of sufficient human

resources and integration or collaboration among MPAs. Thus, in the present context, the use of this

instrument would have to come coordinated by network managers and support MedPAN European or

private funding (sponsors)

CINQUE TERRE: This instrument will be useful for the definition of a proper management plan,

comprising all the necessities of Cinque Terre MPA. Interventions and activities will be planned according to

the necessity and or priorities outlined by the indicators.

STRUNJAN: As the Strunjan MPA is concerned, the future use of the set of indicators should be easier

and more complete according to the pace of improvement of the management of the area (adoption of the

management plan; management of human activities etc).

TAVOLARA: In future the indicator set can be primarily implemented for general direction but if the issues

related to the MPA functioning will not be solved, it will not be apply systematic. The application of the

model, however, leads to an outflow of resources (time) and these are not always available.

Slide # 27

MANAGEMENT INDICATIONS OBTAINED FROM APPLICATION OF THE INDICATORS

CAP DE CREUS: At the level of the Cap de Creus MPA indicators have not highlighted anything new

about what we already knew. Its usefulness will be higher when comparing MPAs, especially at the

international level (managers MedPAN)

CINQUE TERRE: While applying the indicators the lack of long-term a management plan on focal species

was evident. The same is for management of focal habitats and alien invasive species. Currently the main

problem is that management actions are planned on the basis of obtained financing and not on wider

perspective.

STRUNJAN: The additional value to the management of the MPA coming out if the set of indicators is on

one hand linked to the simple ”yes/no“ situation as it is with the existence of a management plan. There are

however other indicators (outreach activities, coordination, networking and others) where the added value

increases with the intensity of the implementation of the activities. In the case of Strunjan (management at

its beginning) the indicators represent also a base on which build the future management activities.

TAVOLARA: The different setting of policies that affect the MPA national system management biases the

indications that may arise from the application of the model, while recognizing, as mentioned above, the

usefulness as synthesis and analysis tool. The concept map produced, as well as in other experiments, is

perhaps too simplified and thus too far from the actual situation.

Slide # 28

SHARING THE TOOL WITH MPA STAFF

CAP DE CREUS: We should share the instrument at higher levels (managers MedPAN among MedPAN

and other organizations such as IUCN, etc.), and internally (within an MPA).

CINQUE TERRE: The instrument has an obvious and great utility for the people involved in the form

compilation, yet it is difficult to share its value and the potential outcomes with the rest of the staff.

STRUNJAN: In the case of Strunjan the set of indicators was analyzed and discussed only with the two

technical members of the staff, which have an initial experience in field work and are currently working on

the management plan. The general idea would be however that the set of indicators should be well known

to all the personnel of the MPA.

TAVOLARA: Good level in the phases of collecting data, lower in those final. The implementation, which

is external to the management system, is bound to the resources availability and to the structure

organization.

Slide # 29

Learn more on the MedPAN North website

www.medpannorth.eu