There are clearly defined, legitimate, equitable, and functional governance arrangements, in which the interests of civil society, rights-holders and stakeholders, are fairly represented and addressed, including those relating to the establishment or designation of the site.
The site is legally established in compliance with relevant international agreements and national and applicable regional legislation, and the site’s legal status is clearly defined and not subject to major ongoing legal or social dispute. Considerations of legitimacy will help with determining the question of how the voices of different actors with different levels of power, such as between genders,are accounted for in decision-making.
Governance arrangements and decision-making processes are transparent and appropriately communicated, and responsibilities for implementation are clear, including a readily accessible process to identify, hear and resolve complaints, dis putes, or grievances.
Governance and decision-making is open to scrutiny by all stakeholders, with information presented in appropriate formats and the reasoning behind decisions evident. There is an appropriate, accessible process to identify, hear and resolve complaints, disputes, or grievances related to the governance or management of the site.
Planning and management draws on the best available knowledge of the social and ecological context of the site, using an adaptive management framework that anticipates, learns from and responds to change in its decision-making.
Governance arrangements should create an environment that enables adaptive capacity to respond to events, knowledge, monitoring and learning. Adaptive governance should enable action despite uncertainty about future environmental change, and should support iterative learning within site planning and management to foster a culture of experimentation and risk taking. Governance determines whether, and how, evaluation and learning from site monitoring programmes are integrated into ongoing planning and management efforts. A solid foundation of adaptive governance should ensure that a site is able to monitor, measure and demonstrate that nature conservation and social goals and objectives are being achieved in the face of changing circumstances.
Adaptive governance instils a learning culture into all aspects of site management and draws on multiple types of knowledge (scientific, experiential, local and traditional) where relevant. Ecosystems and social systems change over time;a learning culture will enable management to adapt to changing circumstances.
Adaptive management is made possible through governance vitality whichis about taking decisions in timely, well connected, adaptable, wise, creative and empowering ways.
The site’s major values for conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values are identified and understood.
A successful ‘Green List’ site must always identify major values forconservation of nature, and depending on the protected areamanagement category and context, the associated cultural and ecosystem service values will also be identifiedand identified.Nature always refers to biodiversity, at genetic, species and ecosystem level, and often also refers to geodiversity, landform and broader natural values. All goals and objectives for management of thesite are identified in accordance with the appropriate IUCN management category. In this Standard, ‘major’ values are defined as nature and associated ecosystem service and cultural values that the site is currently intended to conserve, maintain or enhance.
NATURAL VALUES
Major natural values include:
ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUES
Ecosystem services are the benefits that humans derive from ecosystems. Ecosystem services can be categorised as
Ecosystem service values can be documented using the Protected Area Benefit Assessment Tool or similar tools.
Ecosystem services are a subset of a much larger set of ecological processes. Collectively humans are part of global ecosystems that include species and processes, that keep all people alive. So, in practical terms, assessing ecosystem services is always a small subset of larger ecological benefits that include oxygen, the global water and carbon cycles, etc. However, it is often useful to consider a set of direct benefits that sites provide to local people and communities.
Provisioning services are products obtained from ecosystems, including, for example, genetic resources, food and fibre, and fresh water. Such services may include medicinal plants, firewood or building materials for local purposes, depending on the category of the protected area.
Regulating services are benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes, for example, climate regulation, flood water retention.
Supporting services are those that are necessary for the maintenance of other ecosystem services. Some examples include biomass production, production of atmospheric oxygen, soil formation and retention, nutrient cycling, water cycling. In addition, the human health benefits of sites for surrounding communities and visitors are now well documented and should also be considered here.
CULTURAL VALUES
Cultural values are the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, and aesthetic experience, and include cultural identity and meaning, knowledge systems, social relations, and aesthetic values.
The Burra Charter defines cultural values as tangible and non-tangible values that have aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance for past, present or future generations including:
Each site may have distinctive cultural values that should be documented in the process of applying this Criterion.
The design of the site in its landscape/seascape context support long-term maintenance of the major site values.
The design of the site in its landscape/seascape context (i.e. size, viability, connectivity, context in the landscape) should be sufficient to maintain the major natural values identified in Criterion 2.1.
If connectivity with other sites or habitats is critical to the maintenance of the major site values of the site proposed for Green Listing, these sites should also be adequately managed to maintain the major natural and cultural values of the site. The site should be managed so it is integrated within the wider landscape and/or seascape. This may occur, for example, through active participation within a national or regional conservation strategy or land-use plan, through managing threats in collaboration with surrounding communities and user groups or through international collaboration and agreements, where relevant. The site may also contribute to an ecologically representative and well-connected system of protected areas.
In cases where the conservation of the site’s major site values is dependent on actions orconditions outside its own management control, the manner in which such actions or conditions will nonetheless be achieved or maintained will require explanation. In cases where a major site value is a species population, the site should contain habitats that are of sufficient quality and size, or be connected to other suitable sites to conserve the species in the long term.
Management should consider the long term implications of climate change, and other global change factors, on the major site values identified in Criterion 2.1 and identify strategies to guide management of these values in the context of future change.
Threats and challenges to major site values are described and understood in sufficient detail to enable effective planning and manage mentto address them.
The identification of threats should include all majorcurrent and potential threats to the site’s natural and associated cultural and social and economic values. Threat analysis should include examination of activities that are incompatible with the site’s protected status.
Threats should be identified in collaboration with stakeholders and experts, and should be understood in detail and accuracy relevant to management. Threats could be identified using IUCN-Conservation Measure Partnership (CMP) Threat Classification Scheme<sup>19</sup>. Main categories of threats from the threat taxonomy are described below. As some threats will be specific to each jurisdiction, site type andsite setting and context, any threats not featured the IUCN-CMP threat taxonomy can be identified in the ‘other’ field. Threats may include:
It should be emphasised that this requirement does not exclude the continuation of activities that are compatible with the protected area’s IUCN categorisation, and with its core objectives. Such activities may include hunting, collecting, recreational uses or other activities at sustainable levels.
Please note that the threats/challenges identified in this criterion should provide the basis for management responses to threats identified in criterion 3.4. Likewise, management responses to threats/challenges identified in 3.4 should link to the threats identified in this criterion.
The social and economic context of the site including the positive and negative social and economic impacts of the way it is managed is understood and reflected in site management goals and objectives.
The establishment and management of a protected area may have positive and/or negative impacts on rights-holders, stakeholders and the local community, depending on the prevailing social and economic context. Over time, the type of impact may also change, as conflicts are resolved, new conflicts arise or when governance is enhanced. The current social and economic context of the site should be sufficiently well documented and understood to be considered in ongoing planning and management to optimise positive impacts and to minimise negative impacts where possible.
This includes an understanding of the demographic characteristics of the region, previous uses of the site and the impact of protected area status on:
The site has a long-term strategy that provides a clear explanation of the overall goals and objectives of management (explicitly including the conservation of the area’s major values and achievement of its social and economic goals and objectives). This is reflected in an up-to-date management plan or its functional equivalent, which:
PROVIDE CLEAR AND APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS
A management plan, or functionally equivalent documentation, describes the goals and objectives of management and explains how these goals and objectives are to be achieved.
Green List sites must demonstrate that management of the site is undertaken in accordance with a clear vision based on an understanding of the natural values and associated ecosystem service and cultural values of the site, and other appropriate social, cultural and economic goals and objectives. One approach would be to ensure that the goals and objectives of management are addressed within the management plan (or equivalent) and associated operational planning documentation, supported by evidence showing that the plan is being implemented as described. Plans should demonstrate that management activities address both short term goals and objectives, and also longer-term threats have been considered such as climate change projections for the region. However, other approaches than formal plans, that achieve the same objective would also be acceptable.
The implications of climate change on the natural and/or cultural values of the site should be considered and documented, particularly in relation to the management goals and objectives for these values<sup>21</sup> (see reference for insight into climate change impacts on common site values). The IUCN Best Practice Guidelines Series No.24 on Adapting to Climate Change – Guidance for protected area managers and planners<sup>22</sup> identify the following best practices for setting conservation goals and objectives in the context of climate change:
Climate-ready goals and objectives will provide a solid foundation for all elements of site planning, governance and management into the future. This will require that trends and changes in conditions are monitored over time, requiring management and governance to communicate with key constituents about the implications of these changes on site values and to integrate information into adaptive governance, management and planning<sup>20</sup>.
DEMONSTRATE ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO MANAGE EFFECTIVELY
This Criterion recognises that sites can be successful even if their financial and other resources (understood in this context to mean also capacity) are limited. It is recognised that sites will always benefit from additional funding and capacity, and that this therefore should not, in itself, limit their ability to be placed on the Green List. However, sites with good financial and human resource systems will have a much higher chance of being effectively managed and achieving conservation success. Management actions here encompass planning, implementation, stakeholder engagement, communication, infrastructure, research, volunteer programmes, monitoring and evaluation.
Assessment of this Criterion might address issues such as the following:
The site can clearly demonstrate that ecological attributes and processes are being managed to maintain the site’s major natural values with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.
Management includes plans and actions to maintain ecosystem processes or simulate natural disturbance regimes where required. This could include, for example, fire management, maintenance of sedimentation or larval flows in marine systems, maintenance of hydrological regimes, habitat maintenance for native species, ecological restoration where required, management of native species, maintenance of essential ecological linkages within the site and with adjacent habitats and any other management necessary to maintain conservation values of the site.
Effective management of ecological conditions will be enhanced by use of an ecosystem-based approach to management. As defined by the Convention on Biodiversity, “the ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way [it].is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organisation, which encompass the essential structure, processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognises that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of many ecosystems.
This criterion does not deal directly with the management of threats, which are addressed in Criterion 3.4 (e.g. invasive alien species management).
Management can clearly demonstrate that:
This Criterion is concerned with managing to enhance the social and economic benefits of a site in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of the site and its management category and does not damage or conflict with the major site values.
Social and economic benefits may include improved access, economic stimulus for local communities, opportunities for recreation, tourism, employment, education and scientific research. The type and magnitude of benefits of a given site will vary widely depending on the activities permitted, the relative isolation, and resourcing for the site. The role of the site in providing education, awareness, outreach and instilling value in nature to people, local and visitors and supporting programmes should also be considered.
Evidence to support performance on this Criterion could include how the social and economic context of the site is considered and addressed in the site’s management plan (or equivalent), and associated operational planning documentation that shows that these aspects of the plan are being implemented as described. However, other approaches that achieve the same objective would be acceptable such as documenting management policies, processes and activities relating to this Criterion.
Threats are being actively and effectively responded to, so that their impact is not compromising the maintenance of major site values or the achievement of the area’s goals and objectives.
The intent of this Criterion is that management should respond to both existing and potential threats whose significance may grow over time.
Threats will have been identified in Criterion 2.3. In this Criterion, management should demonstrate that there are programmes in place to contain or reduce the impacts of these threats on major site values such that the goals and objectives of management are able to be achieved. Evidence may include data on the extent and severity of threats and on threat reduction over time.
Relevant laws, regulations and restrictions are fairly and effectively applied in all aspects of the protected area management and operations.
Controls on use of the site including prohibitions on certain activities and conditions applied to permitted activities should be effectively enforced if they are to prevent undesirable impacts on the site. This means that managers must have adequate capacity to detect potential infringements through patrol and surveillance and then the capacity to prevent or prosecute offences.
The broader governance system must have the capacity and the will to support enforcement of these controls through legal or customary means with appropriate sanctions applied to offenders. The application and enforcement of laws, regulations and controls over use must be fairly enforced and not favour particular individuals or groups. The laws, regulations and controls applied to the site are clearly communicated to stakeholders and any changes to these restrictions are made known to affected stakeholders before they are enforced.
When permitted, activities within the area that involve direct access to resources are compatible with and support the achievement of the area’s conservation goals and objectives, meet the needs of users, and are properly regulated. When permitted, tourism and visitor management are compatible with and support the achievement of the area’s conservation goals and objectives.
MANAGEMENT OF APPROVED ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE SITE
Approved activities may include sustainable harvesting of natural resources where permitted by law and in accordance with any restrictions and guidelines contained in the site’s management plan or other policies. This could include artisanal fishing in relevant zones, collection of non-timber forest products for local use, and other low-level harvesting of resources for local use. It would also include approved scientific research and other activities regulated by permit.
MANAGEMENT FOR VISITORS AND TOURISM
Visitor services and facilities meet standards of design, environmental sustainability and safety and are appropriate to the character, values and use of the site. Interpretive, educational and information services for visitors meet appropriate visitor needs and support management. Where access is permitted, consideration has been given to the use of the protected area by people having varied physical ability, and their needs have been adequately and appropriately taken into account, considering the context of the protected area. The tourism industry within the site is managed to support the Protected Area goals and objectives.
Monitoring, evaluation and learning provide an objective basis for determining measures of success. Monitoring and assessment programmes should be capable of providing data on:
As appropriate, thresholds may be determined by changes in major values over a specified time period compared to those anticipated without the protected and conserved area.
The major site values are previously defined under Criterion 2.1. The definition of ‘objective measures of success’ in this Criterion 3.7 provides the basis for the subsequent assessment of Conservation Outcomes, covered in Component 4.
Each of the site’smajor values should be assessed against a performance threshold as the basis for determining conservation success in relation to the associated value. Thresholds will rarely be absolute and may be refined as knowledge improves. There should be an explicit process for revising thresholds as new information is received. Thresholds should not be arbitrarily changed to accommodate changes in management performance.
Thresholds can be established in many ways, including: values taken from scientific literature, comparison with past measurements, ecological modelling, values set by legislation or regulation and/or expert consensus. In all cases, the reasons for the selection of the threshold should be documented as part of the monitoring programme. If the scientific information needed to establish thresholds is lacking or inadequate, site managers can rely on general ecological concepts, comparisons to other similar systems, well-informed expert opinion, or failing that, the site managers’ best estimate to determine a ‘credible first iteration’ of the thresholds.
The specific model for defining and measuring performance thresholds through the specification of ‘Conservation Targets’ and their associated key ecological attributes with acceptable ranges of variation for those attributes<sup>23</sup>, as described in Parrish et al.(2003) provides one acceptable methodology for meeting this Criterion. However, adoption of this specific methodology is not a requirement. Any approach that meets the requirements of the Criterion would also be acceptable. Development of thresholds is an inherent part of the site’s monitoring programme.
The area is meeting or exceeding the performance thresholds for nature conservation, consistent with its IUCN protected area management category.
For IUCN Protected Areas, nature always refers to biodiversity, at the genetic, species and ecosystem level, and often also refers to geodiversity, landform and broader natural values.
Natural values and their associated goals and objectives will be for one or more of the following: (i) intact ecosystems (ecological integrity); (ii) specific species; (iii) specific ecological communities or habitats; (iv) ecological features; (v) ecological processes; (vi) geological features; and (vii) paleontological features (fossils etc.). Many protected areas are also managed for outstanding scenic values and natural beauty which are an inherent part of their ecological and geological features and can be evaluated in this context. Performance thresholds should be measurable and specific to the protected area location and the type of feature being measured. Refer to Criterion 2.1 for determination of the goals and objectives for natural values and to Criterion 3.7 for the development of thresholds.
Measurement of ecological outcomes must be appropriate to the ecological outcomes in question. For guidance on monitoring protected area goals and objectives, practitioners can refer to IUCN’s Protected Area Governance and Management<sup>24</sup>.
The achievement of each natural value threshold should be documented through the site’s established monitoring programme. Wherever possible, science-based thresholds, to assess the condition of each natural value as good, fair or poor, should be established for each of the site’s nature values. However, threshold levels for every nominated value may not exist in many instances. In these cases, expert opinion, and where available, traditional knowledge, should be used to consider the condition of the values as good, fair or poor. Good condition means the natural value is at an unimpaired level in the ecosystem, functioning at a level expected for the ecosystem type. For example, a wildlife population would be at or near carrying capacity. Fair condition indicates a level of concern about the state of the natural value and that is being impaired for some reason. A poor condition indicates that there is major concern with the condition of the natural value that it is functionally impaired and may be in danger.
Normally, Green Listedsites should have all natural resources in good conditions. Exceptions may be granted for nature values in fair condition if there is a sound explanation of causes and a plan in place to restore the condition to good.
Quantitative monitoring, based on a documented method, is the accepted standard, although expert opinion and traditional knowledge may be used as determined by the EAGL. Expert scientific opinion may be used to assess condition if there are adequate reasons why quantitative data are not available and the expertise is relevant and acceptable to the EAGL. Documented traditional ecological knowledge can also be used to monitor the achievement of thresholds. All documentation must be acceptable to the Reviewers.
The area is maintaining and providing the major ecosystem service values.
This Criterion measures the goals and objectives identified in Criterion 2.1 for ecosystem services.
Site managers should take advantage of a range of online tools to assess ecosystem services (see examples below):
The achievement of each ecosystem service threshold should be documented through the site’s established monitoring programme. Quantitative monitoring based on a documented method is the accepted standard. Thresholds should be used to establish the condition of the ecosystem service as being is good, fair or poor condition. Expert scientific opinion may be used to assess condition if there are adequate reasons why quantitative data are not available and the expertise is relevant and acceptable to the EAGL. Documented traditional ecological knowledge may also be used to monitor the achievement of thresholds. All documentation must be acceptable to the Reviewers.
An environmental scan should be conducted to look for potential impacts of the provision of all ecological services on the site’s ecological values. Where an environmental scan indicates potential of major negative impact, a full environmental assessment of those impacts should be conducted.
Wherever possible, science-based thresholds to assess the condition of each ecosystem service as good, fair or poor, should be established for each of the site’s nature values. However, threshold levels for every nominated value may not exist in many instances. In these cases, expert opinion, and where available, traditional knowledge, should be used to consider the condition of the ecosystem service values as good, fair or poor. Good condition means the ecosystem service is at an unimpaired level in the ecosystem and the flow of benefits would be expected to be sustainable. For example, medicinal plants are harvested at a rate that is not decreasing their overall site population. Fair condition indicates a level of concern about the state of the ecosystem service that is reduced or unsustainable for some reason. Poor condition indicates that there is major concern with the provision of the ecosystem service, and that it is functionally impaired and may be in danger of not being present in the future.
Normally, Green Listed sites should have all identified ecosystem services in good conditions. Exceptions may be granted for nature values in fair condition if there a sound explanation of causes and a plan in place to restore the condition to good.
The area is maintaining and providing for the persistence of major cultural values.
This Criterion measures the goals and objectives identified in Criterion 2.1 for cultural values.
Cultural values are the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, and aesthetic experience, including, for example, cultural identity and meaning, knowledge systems, social relations, and aesthetic values.
A range of cultural values are possible, including conservation of built heritage, protection and access to sacred sites and the ability to practice cultural traditions. Measurement systems must be appropriate to the value in question. For built heritage, there should be a condition assessment of the structure or object. For other cultural values, measurement systems and thresholds should be developed in collaboration with the people and communities who hold the cultural value.
Assessing against thresholds for cultural values should be done in conjunction with those people and communities holding the cultural values. Other cultural values should be rated as good, fair or poor according to a group assessment that includes adequate participation from people and groups that hold those cultural values. Ratings of the condition of cultural values should be transparent, recorded and justified.
1 http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
11 https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-area-categories
3 http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/governance_of_protected_areas_from_understanding_to_action.pdf. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, A. Phillips and T. Sandwith (2013). Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xvi + 124pp.
13 Woodley, Stephen. 2010. Ecological Integrity: A Framework for Ecosystem Based Management. Chapter 3 in: Cole, David N and Yung, Laurie (eds.), 2010. Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness Stewardshipin an Era of Rapid Change. Island Press. 304 pp.
14 Borrini-Feyerabend, G., N. Dudley, T. Jaeger, B. Lassen, N. Pathak Broome, A. Phillips and T. Sandwith (2013). Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xvi + 124pp.
15 https://www.iucn.org/resources/project-management-tools/environmental-and-social-management-system
16 Dudley, N. (Editor) (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x + 86pp.WITH Stolton, S., P. Shadie and N. Dudley (2013). IUCN WCPA Best Practice Guidance on Recognising Protected Areas and Assigning Management Categories and Governance Types, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 21, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
17 https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-areas-categories
18 https://www.iucn.org/resources/project-management-tools/environmental-and-social-management-system
19 http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes/threats-classification-scheme
20 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.
21 Hopkins, A., McKellar, R., Worboys, G. L., and Good, R. (2015) ‘Climate change and protected areas’, in G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary and I. Pulsford (eds) Protected Area Governance and Management, pp. 495–530, ANU Press, Canberra.
22 Gross, John E., Woodley, Stephen, Welling, Leigh A., and Watson, James E.M. (eds.) (2016). Adapting to Climate Change: Guidance for protected area managers and planners. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 24, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xviii + 129 pp.
23 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/53/9/851-860/31160438
24 http://press.anu.edu.au/?p=312491: G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary and I. Pulsford (eds) (2015) Protected Area Governance and Management, ANU Press, Canberra.
25 http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?174401/PABATru
26 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041613000417:
27 http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest
28 https://ebmtoolsdatabase.org/tool/costing-nature-coting-nature
