Assessing Co-management in
Protected Areas
in the Northern Territory:
Lessons for Marine Protected Areas
Arturo Izurieta, Natasha Stacey & Stephen Garnett
Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods
Central Land Council
Outline
• Background and Rationale
• Action Research Process to develop a
Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation
(PME) Framework
• Results to Build a PME Framework in NT
Parks for assessing co-management
– Management themes and indicators
– Evaluation framework
– Costs and benefits
• Lessons and challenges
Issues to consider in
Co-Management of Protected Areas
• Partnership not equal in power and
capacities
• Poor shared objectives for management
• Past focus on biodiversity outcomes
• Process can be as important as outcomes
• Poor Communication (between and
amongst partners)
• Management has to be achieved in a cross
cultural partnership
• Achieving social, economic and cultural
outcomes are new fields in park
management.
• Weak or absent monitoring and evaluation
practices and what it costs
Why Participatory Monitoring &
Evaluation in Co-Management?
• M&E should balance the assessment of
biophysical outcomes with partnership
arrangements and processes linked to cultural
interests and rights of partners (Ross et al 2004,
Plummer & Armitage 2007) Bauman and Smyth 2007)
• M&E should be ‘participatory’ so it contributes
positively to management, trust building,
knowledge sharing through learning by doing
(Izurieta et. al 2011)
• PME has a role in empowerment – addresses
power imbalances (Armitage 2003, Olsson et al 2004, Berkes
2009, Cundill & Fabricus 2010, Mahanty et al 2007)
‘Does monitoring and evaluation
improve joint management?
The case of national parks in the NT’.
Project objectives:
• Identify whether Participatory
Monitoring and Evaluation
(PME) enhances the benefits
of Joint Management
• Determine how PME can be
implemented cost effectively
in a partnership with significant
differences in perspectives and
power
• How to scale up PME of Joint
Management to all (27) Parks
and Reserves in the NT
Partners and pilot study areas
Central Land Council
Participatory monitoring and evaluation phases
Participatory
PWS and
Traditional
Owners with
NLC/CLC
adapted from Hockings et.al 2006)
Results 1: Themes & indicators identified
Joint Management Theme
Indicators
Governance (planning and Decision-making and
making decisions
process satisfaction
together)
Representation and
participation satisfaction
Relationships and
communications among
partners
External partnerships
Governance training
Results 1: Themes & indicators identified
Joint Management theme
Managing Country
(Natural and Cultural
Heritage )
Indicators
•Cultural site protection
•Natural resource and
biodiversity management
•Traditional knowledge
transfer
•Combined use of Traditional
and western knowledge
•Resource use and
availability
•Infrastructure availability
•Park management training
Results 1: Themes & indicators identified
Joint Management Theme
Indicator
Benefits to traditional
owners (jobs, training,
business opportunities,
money story)
Employment levels
Associated enterprises
Business training
Results 1: Themes & indicators identified
Joint Management Theme
Indicator
Managing Visitors (Looking Information availability
after visitors)
Visitor satisfaction
Number of joint management indicators classified as
capital assets and as management cycle elements
Results 2: PME Evaluation
Method
VERY GOOD
GOOD
NOT SO GOOD
BAD
Results 3: Cost of M&E
• Costs of PME of
40% of all jointly
managed parks
were less than 1,5%
when compared to
the over all costs of
Joint Management
Expense
Government planning
2008-
2009-
2010-
2009
2010
2011
Total
1,312
404
1,376
3,092
1,483
835
457
2,775
1,879
1,182
613
3,674
202
500
406
1,108
35
51
52
138
4,911
2,972
2,904
10,787
38
48
1,351
1,437
Joint management
coordination
Indigenous
employment
Land Council
engagement
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Total
Lease payments
Results 3: Cost of PM&E
• Savings can be made
through integrating
PM&E of joint
management with
other joint
management activities
PM&E and
PM&E and joint
joint
management
management
Cost in AU$’000s
planning
planning
conducted
conducted
separately
together
Preparation of M&E and first
75
69
Data Collection
19
19
Analysis and Interpretation
23
23
Validation/feed-back, and second
41
27
158
138
joint management meeting
• The preparation and
validation phases of a
PM&E process are the
most expensive
joint management meeting
TOTAL
Benefits of PME
• Process has provided
opportunity for partners to
Have a voice in what is
monitored (e.g. indicators)
and how (rather than being
subjects of the evaluation)
& how the parks are
managed.
• Promoted closer working
relationship in all parks
(although some conflict
remains)
• Greater objectivity, ownership
and confidence in joint
management
Challenges
• Narrow perspective on what is ‘joint
management’ (Parks vs Aboriginal
values).
• Still barriers to participation of
partners (Aboriginal people)
• Still a strong focus on achieving
biodiversity rather than social/cultural
outcomes
• Limited human and financial capacity
to engage in joint management by all
partners
• PME is a new process and requires
further institutionalisation in day to
day operation
Summary
• PME Framework we trialled in terrestrial parks could
very well be applied to MPAs
• PME was not as expensive as envisaged
• Assessment scale using colours (‘traffic lights’)
has proven to be appropriate in across cultural
situation
• PME gave prominence to social, cultural and
economic outcomes in contrast to biophysical
indicators/outcomes
• Integration of PME from the start into joint
management generate cost savings and more
opportunities to build knowledge on monitoring and
evaluation, processes, inputs, outputs and outcomes
Thank you
Acknowledgements
• Arrernte, Wardaman, Wulna, and
Anangu Traditional Owners from
the four pilot parks
• NT Parks and Wildlife Service
• Northern Land Council
• Central Land Council
• Australia Research Council
• RIEL/Charles Darwin University
• Photos: A. Izurieta & NT-PWS
www.riel.cdu.edu.au
arturo.izurieta@cdu.edu.au