Best Practice in Protected Area Management and …

1、Best Practice in Protected Area ManagementPlanningANZECC WorkingGroup on NationalParks and ProtectedAreas ManagementBenchmarking andBest PracticeProgramLead AgencyParks and Wildlife ServiceTasmaniaMay 2000Figure 2Protected AreaManagement Planning System(incorporating evaluation)Management Objectives

2、(Where do we want to go?What do we want to achieve?)Adjust actions?Management Actions(How are we goingto get there?)Review Management(What needs to happento improve performance?)Evaluation(Where are we? Are we getting where we want to go?)Figure 3Model of Protected Area Management Planning ProcessRe

3、vision of final plan, submission analysis and reportingGenerally this step involves documentation of public comments along with the resulting proposed plan changes. This documentation then accompanies (he proposed final plan through the subsequent approval steps. The level of feedback (o submitters

4、is variable, ranging from basic acknowledgement (most agencies) to published analysis of submissions (WA).Advisory/management committees/counciis and Traditional Owners may be involved in this or the previous stage, reviewing plans and submissions and advising the Minister (NSW, SA, NT, WA, Tas. ACT

5、, NZ). NZ has a legislated deadline to revise a draft plan and forward it to the Conservation Board within 8 months of public release. The Board then is required to approve the plan or refer it back to the DG within 6 months.Approved planA plan is approved by the Traditional Owners/Minister/Chief Ex

6、ecutive/Board and, in some cases, finally by the Parliament or the Governor. There is a myriad of different administrative processes. The public is informed of approval through public notice and copies are made available.ImplementationThere is little detail on how implementation is achieved. The Com

7、monwealth, NZ and ACT arc actively exploring this area.Monitoring and evaluationThere is little detail on processes here. Mid-term reviews are conducted in WA and NT. NZ and Tas arc developing monitoring and evaluation frameworks and processes.Decision to review planAs circumstances or legislation d

8、ictate. Usually the same processes are followed in broad terms.5 REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PRACTICESThis section identifies sonic “good practices “ in various aspects of the management planning process. Where known, specific planning tools/products are referred to. These are listed together in Append

9、ix 8.Audience for management plansManagement plans arc prepared mainly for regular use by protected area managers (including operational staff). However, they are not intended as detailed works programs. Members of the public and senior agency staff are also important users. In some situations, trad

10、itional owners, neighbours, local Government or commercial operators can also be primary users.Management plans must meet managers, needs in terms of content, level of detail, case of use. There arc often conflicts between the needs and expectations of reserve managers, the comniunity and senior sta

11、ff etc.Good PracticesIdentify and involve main users closely in plan preparation.Facilitate and encourage managers to lead/contribute to planning projects.Understand main users expectations and seek to meet them, where appropriate, in the planning process.Format and content of management plansThere

12、has been some convergence in the format and content of management plans. In general there has been a move to shorter, more concise plans, focussing on significant values and issues with little background resource information. These shorter plans may be supported by subsidiary documentation in which

13、specific issues or areas arc addressed in more detail. This method of planning can be more suitable to traditional owners because it provides an opportunity for detailed discussion of issues.Queensland has taken the initiative of producing A3 brochure style plans fbr some smaller/simpler reserves.Th

14、e Commonwealth has adopted a very simple English style fbr ils latest Kakadu plan, io make ii more accessible to traditional owners. Although some consider this style condescending, the concept of making plans more accessible to a wider range of users is worthy. Similarly, the Commonwealth has also

15、translated key sections of the Uluru plan into the local Aboriginal language, Pitjantjatjara, and of the Christinas Island plan into Chinese and Bhasa Malay thereby acknowledging the main cultural groups on the Island.Standard formats are more or less being used within each agency. Sometimes these a

16、re supported by electronic templates and planning manuals (o assist staff. These provide quality control as well as speeding the process.Good PracticesUse a simple, clear style with user-friendly language.Place the reserve in context - regional, national, international.Identify significant values an

17、d issues.Identify the criteria by which the performance of management under the plan will be assessed (see Tas reserve management performance standards)Use electronic templates and vary as needed (e.g. Qld, Vic, NSW, NT, Tas).Produce a management planning kit/manual for planners including procedures

18、, standard documents, common policies etc. (see Vic, NSW, Qld, NT documents)Use two (or more) levels of management plans - more detailed, fuller plans for national parks and important protected areas and less detailed, briefer plans for smaller reserves (see Qld plans).Targets and timeframesTargets

19、set by Ministers and/or agency senior management have been most effective in gaining high proportions of reserves covered by management plans. With the exception of WA and Qld, all other states and NZ expect to have all or nearly all national parks with management plans by the end of 2001 (see Appen

20、dix 4). In NSW new parks have been added to the system and the target is now to have plans fbr new parks within 2-5 years after gazcttal.The focus of management planning effort has been on higher status, high use reserves. For example, there are approximately 27(X) protected areas in Victoria under

21、various pieces of legislation but only the 91 reserves managed under the National Parks Act are part of Parks Victorias planning target.In NZ, where DOC is responsible for over 5000 pieces of land, overall planning direction is provided by Conservation Management Strategies (CMSs) for each conservan

22、cy. Individual management plans are prepared for each national park and other reserves as identified by (he CMS. NT, WA and Tas are also using/dcvcloping broad planning approaches to provide a level of planning for all reserves.Timeframes for plan preparation and approval vary from 10 months (o 2+ y

23、ears (sec Appendix 3 tor individual planning stages). Too tight a timeframe can alienate the public, miss out on valuable consultation and result in a plan needing early revision. However, there is a point where collecting additional information and further consultation will not add much more to the

24、 plan but can be expensive.Good PracticesGain high level (Ministerial/Agency) public commitment to planning targets and timetables - as a means of ensuring planning is initiated and completed.Develop comprehensive planning for the entire protected area estate not just a selection of reserves (see NZ

25、, NT, Tas approaches).Establish realistic timeframes for the planning process to enable meaningful public consultation pre and post draft plan.Public involvementProviding opportunities for the public to have input to management of protected areas is a major role of the management planning process. T

26、he community may be involved in the planning process at many levels, including:basic provision of information about the planning process and a general invitation to comment (planning tbr the public);targeted consultation with groups and individuals about specific issues (planning with the public);ac

27、tive participation by the community in issues identificalion/definition and resolution (planning by the public).Greatly increased levels of time and resources are required to support active community participation in management planning. Determining the appropriate level of community involvement in

28、a planning project is a key “good practice “ decision.All reserve legislation requires formal exhibition of draft management plans for a minimum period (1-3 months) and some legislation requires pre-draft consultation.Regardless of legislative requirements, all agencies consult with stakeholders and

29、 the public in the early planning stages. Formal calls for submissions at this stage can bring out important issues but generally most public response comes with the draft plan. Invited stakeholder workshops are an effective way of gathering and focussing public input at an early stage.Where there a

30、re tight planning time frames, pre and post draft consultation is minimal and may lead to loss of public involvement and confidence in the process.With many competing demands on peoples time, techniques are required that encourage and assist public involvement.The internet is becoming increasingly i

31、mportant, especially for publishing draft plans. However, face-to- facc contact with interested people and groups will remain a key aspect of public consultation, particularly with Aboriginal/Iwi people, but also local coninuinitics and neighbours.The experience of adequately consulting with traditi

32、onal owners is mixed. Where traditional rights have been recognised through settlements, land title etc., there arc clear mechanisms for Aboriginal/Iwi involvement. Elsewhere, pending Native Title claims have complicated (he process of consultation withAboriginal communities. It can be unclear who s

33、hould be consulted. Time constraints imposed by planning targets can mitigate against attempts at meaningful consultation with Aboriginal people. However, approaches adopted by NZ. NT. WA, the Commonwealth and Tas arc useful. Characteristics of effective processes of consultation with traditional ow

34、ners include: allowing adequate lime for relevant community members to be consulted, face to face contact in the community environment, use of suitable media and language and official recognition in the process through membership of boards, committees, partnerships etc.Most agencies do not provide p

35、ublished feedback to the public on submissions received on draft plans and any resulting changes. Although time-consuming, this step would improve accountability and confidence in the process as well as encourage continued involvement.Good PracticesTailor consultation to the particular circumstances

36、.Inform the public when planning has commenced.Involve key stakeholders and others early.Enable “non-submission writers to be heard through on-site visits etc. where they feel comfortable.Establish and use state/regional/district consultation databases.Use a variety of media.Prepare public consultat

37、ion packages for staff (sec NSW guide to the design of public consultation programs).Prepare information for the public on the planning process (see Qld pamphlet outlining the process and how people can get involved).Provide user friendly consultation materials and draft plans.Include submission gui

38、de in front of draft plans (see WA draft plans).Provide feedback to the public of impact of submissions received on draft plan (see WA documents).Allow sufficient time for meaningful consultation with Aboriginal/Iwi people, face-to-face contact where they feel comfortable (e.g. WA, NT, NZ, Commonwea

39、lth approaches).Boards, councils, advisory and consultative committeesLegislative provision for boards of management and councils/advisor)z committees varies but most provide for their involvement in preparation of plans. In some cases they are formally involved in plan approval. In NZ Conservation

40、Boards may approve management plans.District and/or reserve specific consultative and advisory committees may also be involved in plan preparation and are part of the broader public involvement process covered in Section 5.4. The effectiveness of such groups in helping to resolve management planning

41、 issues can depend on how representative they are of the broad range of stakeholder interests. The more representative the better.Where they are formally involved in approval of management plans, boards and advisory councils/committees clearly have a significant role in the process. How well ihis is

42、 being met and how their operation may be improved is beyond the scope of this study. However, the use by statutory bodies of sub-committees to specifically review draft management plans and public submissions as a basis for a full council recommendation to the Minister appears to increase the effec

43、tiveness of these bodies. Also, as for the general public, the involvement of advisory bodies in plan development from an early stage through field visits and participation in goal and issue identification can be most productive.The value of other committees can be more problematic. Where set up and

44、 supported by the agency for a specific planning task they may work well. Depending on the fbrvour rating of issues, personalities, agency resources etc., it can be difficult to get individuals representing particular interests to agree to balanced resolution of issues.Good PracticesRole and level o

45、f responsibility/authority of the council/comniittee is meaningful and clearly defined.There is regular 2-way communication and information sharing between the agency and council/committee.Council/comniittee members understand and support management objectives for the protected area.Contracting out

46、vs. internal staff.Most agencies use in-house staff, generally designated planning staff, to prepare management plans. At limes, most have used consultants/contractors for specific or specialised planning work (e.g. site design).Parks Victoria has been the only agency to use contractors to a signifi

47、cant degree but even here value is added in-house, the amount depending on the performance of (he contractor. Parks Victoria embarked on a greatly accelerated management planning program in 1995 following a government audit of activities. The circumstances were exceptional - clear targets were estab

48、lished publicly by the Minister, there was a massive increase in the level of resourcing and access to an available pool of high level skills (many senior staff had been made redundant in the public service cut-backs).Advantage of using contractors:more readily match resources to (he demands of the

49、programperformance of the work is isolated from competing demandsgain access to more experienced personnel (in the particular circumstances applying in Victoria)Disadvantages of using contractors:limited freedom to change briefcontractors limited appreciation of organisational standardscontractors l

50、imited understanding of public sector structures and functioningno regeneration of knowledge and experience in housepotential for loss of skills and experience altogether where contractors abandon the field in downturns in the level of contractinginput from contracted planners not usually available

51、during implementation phase of the plandecreased likelihood of organisational learning and progressive improvement in managemcni planningoften there is a need tbr significant input from Departmental staff thereby reducing apparent efficiencies that may be gained by using contractorsAny use of contra

52、ctors needs to be accompanied by clear documentation (e.g. Parks Victoria planning manual). Unsatisfactory plans due to inadequate briefs and control are reported by other agencies. The recent experience of some agencies in using planning contractors is that, despite frequent project team meetings a

53、nd clear guidelines, (hey arc not quicker, cheaper or better (han internal planning teams.Good PracticesIf plans are to be prepared by out-ofhouse staff it should be on the basis of a well-documented contract. Adequate provision needs to be made for necessary in-house project management and value ad

54、ding.Use a strategic and quality controlled project management approach whether planning is undertaken by contractors or internal staff.Managers vs. dedicated plannersIn most agencies in-housc management plans arc mainly prepared by planners. Planning projects may be led by the planner or District M

55、anager/senior district staff. District staff are involved in steering groups/project teams. These aiTangements are intended to achieve “ownership “ of plans by managers.Having full-time planners as against part-time district/rcgional planners results in a much quicker rate of plan production.NSW has

56、 long encouraged and assisted management staff to do management planning themselves to gain real ownership by managers. Managers are supported and advised by head office planning staff who provide quality control. Until recently this was also the SA approach, but i( is now seen as producing too vari

57、able a result and plans are being prepared by professional planners on a contractual basis.Good PracticesPlanning projects initiated and run by District Managers (except for large/complex reserves such as World Heritage Areas).Close involvement of district staff in the planning process.Use of projec

58、t teams with at least one member of the district responsible for implementation of the plan.Provide detailed guidance and support (e.g. manuals, templates and planning advice) wheredistrict staff are responsible for management planning.ImplementationResponsibility fbr implementation of plans is gene

59、rally though relevant Park, Regional or District Managers. However, the link between preparing a plan and implementing it is not usually made very explicit. The majority of agencies reported no or only tenuous links between managemenl plans and priority setting and budget allocation. Just because an

60、 action is in a management plan does not guarantee funding. With some exceptions, the financial implications of a management plan are not generally considered in the approval process.Better integration of management planning processes and plans with policy and strategy frameworks and budgeting and d