ASSESSMENT OF PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS: IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCE ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE CHORNOBYL BIOSPHERE RESERVE
Abstract
The article is dedicated to developing and implementing a Protected Area Management Effectiveness (PAME) assessment method within the activities of the Chornobyl Radiation and Ecological Biosphere Reserve (ChREBR). The relevance of PAME assessment for achieving international and national nature conservation goals is substantiated, especially in the context of the absence of an approved national methodology and challenges caused by the war. Existing international approaches to PAME assessment and the experience of their application worldwide are analyzed. The research aimed to develop and practically apply an adapted PAME assessment methodology in ChREBR, analyze the results obtained, and disseminate the experience. The development is based on the METT (Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool) method, which has been gradually implemented in the reserve. The result of the assessment was the overall management effectiveness index defined of the ChREBR. The strengths (planning, outcomes) and weaknesses (inputs, processes) of management were identified. Recommendations were made to improve management, in particular, to involve communities, demarcate boundaries, improve planning, and fundraising. A conclusion was made about the successful implementation of the adapted METT method in the reserve. The obtained effectiveness index correlates with the average values for other protected areas in Ukraine. Further research into the impact of the implementation of the method on the quality of management of the protected area is a prospect.
References
2. Chen H., Zhang T., Costanza R., Kubiszewski I. (2023). Review of the approaches for assessing protected areas' effectiveness. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Volume 98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106929
3. Ervin J. (2003) Rapid Assessment of Protected Area Management Effectiveness in Four Countries, BioScience, Volume 53, Issue 9. Pages 833–841, https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0833: RAOPAM]2.0.CO;2
4. Gilligan, B., Dudley, N., Fernandez de Tejada, A. and Toivonen, H. (2005) Management effectiveness evaluation of Finland’s protected areas. Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Finland’s Protected Areas. Nature Protection Publications of Metsähallitus. Series A 147.
5. Gray, C., Hill, S., Newbold, T. et al. (2016) Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat Commun 7, 12306. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12306
6. Gurney G. G., Adams V. M., Álvarez- Romero J.G., Claudet J. (2023) Area-based conservation: Taking stock and looking ahead, One Earth, Volume 6, Issue 2, Pages 98-104, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.01.012
7. Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. and Courrau, J. (2006). Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. 2nd edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xiv + 105 pp.
8. IUCN. (2021). Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT): New edition of the METT Handbook launched.URL: https://www.iucn.org/news/protected-areas/202112/management-effectiveness-tracking-tool-mett-new-edition-mett-handbook-launched
9. Kearney S, Adams V, Fuller R et al. (2020). Estimating the benefit of well-managed protected areas for threatened species conservation. Oryx 54(2): 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001739
10. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, December 19, 2022, Convention on Biological Diversity CBD/COP/DEC/15/4. URL: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf
11. Li, G., Fang, C., Watson, J.E.M. et al. (2024). Mixed effectiveness of global protected areas in resisting habitat loss. Nat Commun 15, 8389. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-52693-9
12. Protected Planet. (2020) Report. Chapter 6. Effectively managed. URL: https://protectedplanetreport2020.protectedplanet.net/chapter-6
13. Protectedplanet.net (2024). The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT). https://www.protectedplanet.net/en/thematic-areas/protected-areas-management-effectiveness-pame?tab=METT
14. Prots, B., I. Ivanenko, T. Yamelynets, and E. Stanciu, ed. (2010). Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Areas Management (RAPPAM) for Ukraine (in Ukrainian). Lviv, Ukraine: Gryf Fond, p. 92.
15. Stolton, S., Ahlroth, P., Auvinen, A.-P., Dehmel, N., Dudley, N., Hošek, M., Lahti, K., Ross, B., Leung, Y.-F. (2024). Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Finland’s Protected Areas: 2023. – Nature Protection Publications of Metsähallitus. Series A 250. 195 pp.
16. Support to Nature Protected Areas of Ukraine. (2020). A national version of the methodology for assessing the management effectiveness of Ukrainian protected areas was formed within the SNPA project. URL: http://snpa.in.ua/en/v-ramkah-proektu- sformuvaly-natsionalnu-versiyu-metodyky-dlya-otsinyuvannya-efektyvnosti-upravlinnya-pryrodno-zapovidnymy-terytoriyamy-v-ukrayini/
17. Wauchope, H.S., Jones, J.P.G., Geldmann, J. et al. (2022). Protected areas have a mixed impact on waterbirds, but management helps. Nature 605, 103–107 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04617-0
18. Варуха А. В. (2022) Eфективність управління природоохоронними територіями і роль функціонального зонування в методиках її оцінювання. Ukr. geogr. z., No. 2: 64–72. https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2022.02.064 [Varukha, A. V. (2022). Effective Management of Protected Areas and the Role of Functional Zoning in Its Assessment Methods. Ukr. geogr. z., No. 2: 64–72. https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2022.02.064 (in Ukrainian)]
