Good governance of protected areas
Broad principles | Specific principles |
---|---|
Legitimacy |
|
Fairness |
|
Accountability |
|
Performance |
|
Direction |
|
Table: 14 Good Governance Principles of Protected Areas |
Piloting the governance assessment methodology
Based on the IUCN Guidelines, specific methodologies for conducting site-level governance assessments have been developed. Four SNRD member projects took part in this process by supporting methodology development and serving as pilot sites: The project in Lao PDR developed a tailor-made assessment and training methodology with support of a local NGO and piloted it in 2014; in 2017 the projects in Bangladesh and the Philippines pilot tested an assessment methodology which is being developed in cooperation with IIED and the Sector Programme Implementing the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity).
Each pilot site looked at a customised sub-set of governance principles according to its specific motivation to conduct a governance assessment.
Site | Key objectives for conducting a governance assessment |
---|---|
Bangladesh |
|
Lao PDR |
|
Philippines |
|
Table: Key objectives of the three pilot sites for conducting a governance assessment |
Governance assessment methodology – steps in the process
For every site, the time and resources committed to the process had to be tailored to suit the local context. In Lao PDR, the assessment process was partly different compared to Bangladesh and the Philippines, as the methodology had been specifically developed for the site. For all sites, the assessment steps can be roughly summarised as below:
-
Synthesis, validation & ideas for action:
- Preanalysis and syntheis of data gathered in the field
- Participatory stakeholder workshop 2
- Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT)
- Validation and consensus finding among all stakeholders
- De-briefing and result sharing meetings
Strengths and challenges in current protected area governance identified through the assessments (examples)
Benefits from the assessment process itself
- Being a participatory process, in which the stakeholders themselves conduct a self-assessment, reflections on good governance are triggered, thereby initiating change
- External facilitation of the self-reflection helps bring issues to light and makes it easier for stakeholders to accept the presented results
- Training is part of the assessment, therefore facilitators and documenters are capacitated to act as replicators; in Lao PDR the assessment resulted in a 'training manual'
- The assessment brings different stakeholders together, enhancing mutual understanding and supporting conflict resolution, as observed in Bangladesh and the Philippines
- Stakeholders, including the community level, generate concrete ideas for action which have the potential to improve the governance situation and are often easy to implement
- Governance assessment tools and successes can be scaled-up or replicated in other protected areas; in the Philippines, replications of the assessment, based on the learnings from Agusan Marsh, are under preparation
- Strategic planning becomes more governance-sensitive when priorities are pointedly set on addressing weaknesses of the governance system from the onset, as in the case of Lao PDR
- Annual monitoring of system performance against good governance principles ensures inclusive and equitable institutional development, thereby serving as a safeguard, as in the case of Lao PDR
Benefits from the actions implemented as a follow-up of the assessment
Given the greater time window to implement actions based on assessment results, the benefits below are drawn from the assessment in Lao PDR conducted in 2014. In comparison, the other assessment sites have only recently started following up with action planning.
- Ownership and empowerment: Delegation of law enforcement authority to villagers, ensuring ownership, accountability and rapid response
- Inclusivity and participation: Delegation of authority to the local communities including women and Indigenous Peoples, who are sensitised about co-management and conservation, empowerment and motivated for action
- Rights and access: Due to the participatory zonation of villages and establishment of rules based on customary rights and practices, conducted in the wake of the assessment, local people are clear about resource and user rights and follow the rules established for different zones of the protected area
- Bottom-up piloting: Decentralised governance with inclusion of local knowledge has led to better relations between the local communities and authorities. Interlinked committees from village to district level increase accountability in the system and advocacy on community-level
- Conflict-resolution: Overlapping titles in and around the protected area was reaffirmed as a key source of potentially violent conflict by all stakeholder groups. This finding revived a dialogue process amongst government agencies and local governments
- Further, conflict resolution mechanisms are created through institutionalization of co-management platforms at different levels