Transcript Document

Tasmania’s Monitoring and Reporting System
for National Parks and Reserves
A robust and practical system for
evaluating management effectiveness
Glenys Jones
Tasmania Parks & Wildlife Service
Associate, University of Tasmania
Tasmania’s Monitoring and Reporting System
Key features:
•
Outcomes-focused
•
Evidence-based
•
Transparent to all interested parties
•
Operationally practical and scaleable
•
Aligned with formal responsibilities for reserve management
AND stakeholder-identified needs for performance information
•
Addresses different reporting scales (state-wide, managed-area,
major projects)
•
Well-suited to government
•
Can be integrated into organizational systems, plans & processes
•
Fosters organizational learning and continuous improvement
•
Builds community trust and understanding
•
Supports sound evidence-based adaptive management
2
Background
•
It makes good sense to monitor and evaluate management effectiveness.
 We all need to know what’s working and what’s not.
Not performing well?
Performing well?
We want to know
We need to know
- so we can improve
However…
• Monitoring & evaluation is a complex and challenging field…
“Information is a source of learning, but unless it is organized, processed and available to
the right people in a format for decision making, it is a burden not a benefit.”
— William Pollard (1828-1893)
Over the past 20 years, the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife
Service has made considerable progress in developing
robust yet practical evaluation systems to support
evidence-based adaptive management.
PWS milestones in evaluation
1992: First statutory management plan for Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area
 Plan prescribed that a management effectiveness evaluation system be developed
1999: Second edition of the management plan for the Tasmanian Wilderness WHA
 Framework for evaluation was integrated into the plan with clear statements of ‘Key Desired
Outcomes’
 Plan prescribed that a State of the Tasmanian Wilderness WHA Report be developed to
evaluate management effectiveness under the plan
2004: State of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Report published
 First comprehensive evaluation of management effectiveness for the Area
 Received Australasian Evaluation Society’s Award for best publication in evaluation
2006: Parks & Wildlife Service commits to building a state-wide performance
monitoring & evaluation system (PWS Strategic Plan 2006-2008)
2010: Draft report outlining proposed Monitoring and Reporting System for Tasmania’s
national parks and reserves released for comment


Positive feedback from key stakeholders and external peer reviewers
Pilot demonstration of Stage 1 built and operating successfully on department’s intranet
2011: Department commits to building and implementing the Monitoring and Reporting
System (DPIPWE Corporate Plan 2011-2014)
2013: Final report on the Monitoring & Reporting System approved & published.
2014: Monitoring & Reporting System progressively being built and implemented. 5
(ongoing)
Development of the Monitoring & Reporting System
for Tasmania’s national parks and reserves
Project objective
“To develop a practical
performance monitoring and
reporting system that generates
measured evidence of
management progress,
achievements and challenges
across Tasmania’s national parks
and reserves.”
Our adaptive management approach
Jones (2005, 2009)
PROJECT INPUTS
1. formal responsibilities for reserve management
- legislated objectives for reserve management, responsibilities under international agreements
(e.g. World Heritage Convention)
2. stakeholder workshops
Q1. What would tell you that
Tasmania’s national parks and reserves
were being well managed?
Q2. Where would you realistically
expect to see improvements or
changes if management was working
well?
Q3. Where would you realistically
expect to see things getting worse or
changing if management was not
working well?
What the workshops revealed:
•
key topics of interest for assessing management performance
•
‘indicators of change’ (what would change under improving or worsening performance scenarios)
 priority areas for monitoring & evaluation
Key stakeholders and their needs for performance information
Reserve managers
(Management agency staff & decision-makers)
Major funding partners
(e.g. state & federal governments,
other funding sources)
Specialists & experts
(e.g. natural resource scientists,
cultural heritage specialists,
university experts)
Community stakeholders
(e.g. management advisory committees,
community interest groups, local/ indigenous
communities, business/commercial interests,
NGOs/conservation groups, etc)
Tasmania’s Monitoring & Reporting System addresses the identified needs of all key stakeholder groups
The Monitoring & Reporting Framework
To understand how reserve management is performing in Tasmania, the
management agency and stakeholders need factual information about six
performance arenas.
Arenas:
1. Management context and arrangements
2. Condition of reserves and reserve values
3. Management of threats, risks and impacts
4. Management of tourism, recreation and other uses
5. Community engagement and support
6. Management systems, processes and tools
+ associated
Key
Performance
Areas (KPAs)
FRAMEWORK OF THE MONITORING AND REPORTING SYSTEM
Note: For a print quality version of this framework, go to www.parks.tas.gov.au/monitoring
Levels and types of reporting outputs
Examples
1. State-wide (jurisdictional)
 Status and Trends Reports
Status & Trends Report: Fire
Management
Brief overview of state-wide performance for key performance areas of ongoing
interest to reserve management – online report.
e.g. Status & Trends Report - fire management
 Reference Information
Additional information (not monitored) – online report
e.g. Reference Information – legislation and policy framework for reserve
management
State of TWWHA Report
2. Managed area (under management plan)
 Periodic Evaluation Reports
Evaluated effectiveness of a specific reserve management
plan in achieving the planned outcomes.
e.g. State of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area
Report No 1, 2004
3. Project-based
 Evaluated Case Study Reports
Monitored effectiveness of major projects in achieving
the project objectives
e.g. Evaluation Report: Macquarie Island Pest
Eradication Project 2014
Evaluation Report: Macquarie
Island Pest Eradication
Project
Example of monitored results – quantitative data
EVALUATION REPORT: MACQUARIE ISLAND PEST ERADICATION PROJECT (FERAL RABBITS & RODENTS)
Figure 1. Monitored feral rabbit numbers in Macquarie Island Rabbit Count Areas 2007-2011
Calicivirus
introduced
Aerial baiting
program
2007
2008
2009
2010
Calicivirus
introduced
Aerial baiting
program
2011
Month and Year
The figure above shows the monthly average number of rabbits recorded in Rabbit Count Areas (RCAs) from 2007 to
late 2011. Seasonal variations in numbers are clearly evident over the period. In 2011, rabbit numbers dramatically
declined following the introduction of calicivirus (RHDV) in February 2011, and subsequently declined to zero following
the whole-of-island baiting program in May/June 2011. Monthly rabbit counts (n=14) were continued with zero sightings
recorded from June 2011 until counts ceased in December 2011.
Example of monitored results – qualitative data
Figure 2. Photo monitoring sequence of vegetation condition on Macquarie Island (Sandy Bay boardwalk)
1990
1. Condition of vegetation healthy
with full tussock cover
Eradication
declared
successful
Rabbit and rodent
eradication project
Feral rabbit
population explosion
2005
2. Vegetation heavily over-grazed
by feral rabbits, dead tussocks
common
2014
3. Three years after the baiting
program, vegetation is
clearly recovering and
surrounds the new
boardwalk
Photos: PWS/Jenny Scott (UTas)
Lessons
• To be useful and used, monitoring and evaluation systems
need to be:
*Relevant *Reliable *Accessible & *Resilient
RRAR!
Tasmanian tiger or thylacine
– In 1830 a bounty was introduced for thylacines
– The last known thylacine died in 1936
– Status: EXTINCT
Make monitoring & evaluation
RRAR!
*R
– to key stakeholders
elevant – to all stakeholders
 e.g. managers, decision-makers,
funders, experts, community
*Reliable – evidence-based
 founded in good science
Tasmanian tiger or thylacine
Status: EXTINCT
*Accessible
– to all interested parties
 online transparent reporting of findings
*Resilient
– to change
 linked & aligned with stable/enduring
mandates
 operationally practical & scaleable
How can policy and decision-makers encourage
RRAR* monitoring & evaluation?
*Relevant *Reliable *Accessible & *Resilient
1. Make a bold strategic commitment to evidence-based adaptive management
(e.g. adopt the adaptive management cycle at all levels).
2. Establish expectations and requirements for measuring and demonstrating the results
achieved from investment of resources in programs (e.g. contract requirements,
legislated requirements)
3. Integrate, link and align the monitoring & evaluation framework with stable/enduring
mandates (e.g. legislation, international agreements, long-term funding commitments)
4. Allocate a small ongoing percentage (5-10%) of budget to measuring evidence to
evaluate results of significant projects/programs (‘METER programs’).
5. No matter how complex a monitoring & evaluation system or its datasets, make sure
there is a simple ‘front end’ that can be quickly grasped and understood by a broad
range of audiences (including decision-makers and funders).
6. A user-friendly website and hierarchically structured reporting helps everyone to find
what they are looking for quickly and easily.
7. Remember you can’t monitor everything. Prioritise!

For more information: www.parks.tas.gov.au/monitoring
[email protected]
18
Acknowledgement: Tasmanian and Australian government funding for management of Tasmania’s national parks and World Heritage Areas