Green List
Global Standard

Components, Criteria & Indicators

Component 1
GOOD GOVERNANCE

Criterion 1.1
GUARANTEE LEGITIMACY AND VOICE

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-1.1.1
The site's governance structure is clearly defined and documented and in accordance with relevant national or regional government, jurisdiction or recognised authority specifications.
Foundational documents or equivalent containing rules, bylaws, governance structure.
GLS-V1.1-1.1.2
The site's local governance structures and mechanisms provide civil society, stakeholders and rights-holders with appropriate opportunities to participate in management planning, processes and actions.
Foundational documents or equivalent explaining rules, bylaws, governance structure. Minutes of meetings during management plan development.
GLS-V1.1-1.1.3
The site's local governance structures and mechanisms recognise the legitimate rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Documentation of formal or in formal relationships / agreements with relevant groups. Meetings with local and indigenous communities. Guidance on Indigenous Rights is contained in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples1.
GLS-V1.1-1.1.4
Rights-holders and stakeholders are effectively involved in decision-making and the adaptive management of the site
Clear identification of rights- holders and stakeholders. Discussion with rights-holders and stakeholders. Discussion with site managers. Documentation of formal or informal relationships/agreements with relevant groups. ‘Effective involvement' will be assessed by the EAGL.
GLS-V1.1-1.1.5
Governance arrangements help advance gender equity in relation to management of the site.
Documented evidence of efforts to improve and maintain gender equity through governance and decision-making structures, management and employment programmes, employment records. Governance arrangements help advance gender equity in and around the site.
GLS-V1.1-1.1.6
The defined governance structures and mechanisms are accepted by major constituents (civil society, rights-holders and stakeholders), reflecting the governance category of the site.
Documentation of formal or informal relationships / agreements between major constituent groups. Discussions with constituent groups.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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.

Criterion 1.2
ACHIEVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-1.2.1
The governance structures and key documents on management are readily accessible to civil society in an easily understandable format. Key documents include the site's management plan or equivalent, relevant subsidiary plans and other key direction documents.
Confirmation of public accessibility of the listed documents, records and other information
GLS-V1.1-1.2.2
Where a formal decision- making body exists, the current membership of the body is publically available and procedures for establishment and membership of the body are publically accessible, or where there is no decision- making body appointed, the names and contact details of formal decision-makers such as a Minister or Agency Director are publically accessible.
Confirmation of public availability of the current membership of any decision-making body for the site. Confirmation of public accessibility of the relevant details
GLS-V1.1-1.2.3
The outcomes of discussions by decision- making bodies or decision- makers in relation to issues raised by civil society, rights-holders and stakeholders are publically available.
Assessments and reports confirming there is appropriate, clear and regular communication of decisions from decision- making bodies or decision- makers. There may be cases where public availability of some discussions is not appropriate, especially in relation to cultural heritage measures.
GLS-V1.1-1.2.4
A readily accessible process to identify, hear and resolve complaints, disputes or grievances related to the governance or management of the site is in place.
Assessments and reports, endorsed by stakeholders, confirming there is an appropriate process in place.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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.

Criterion 1.3
ENABLE GOVERNANCE VITALITY AND CAPACITY TO RESPOND ADAPTIVELY

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-1.3.1
Procedures are in place to ensure that results from monitoring, evaluation and consultation are used to inform management and planning processes including the establishment of goals and objectives.
Monitoring reports with recommendations on corrective management actions. Documentation of procedures for connecting monitoring and evaluation. There may be cases where some monitoring information should not be public, such as location of endangered species or cultural heritage matter.
GLS-V1.1-1.3.2
Planning and decision- making recognises relevant conditions, issues and goals at national and regional scales that impact the protected area.
Documentation of planning processes.
GLS-V1.1-1.3.3
Planning and management processes draw on multiple knowledge sources (scientific, experiential, local and traditional knowledge).
Documentation of planning processes clearly demonstrating knowledge sources and how they are sourced and used in decision-making processes.
GLS-V1.1-1.3.4
The site has, where relevant, considered historical changes and future projections in social, ecological and climate conditions.
References used for planning processes. Considerations included in management plan or equivalent.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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.

Component 2
SOUND DESIGN AND PLANNING

Criterion 2.1
IDENTIFY AND UNDERSTAND MAJOR SITE VALUES

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-2.1.1
The site meets the IUCN definition of a Protected Area and/or is recognised as a 'Conserved Area'
Foundational documents or equivalent. Documented consultation with site management. Reference to IUCN Protected Area definition[11] and IUCN guidance on Conserved Areas and 'Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures'. Foundational documents are the baseline documents used to manage the site, including management plans, systems plans, national legislation, national protected areas framework documents, etc.
GLS-V1.1-2.1.2
The site has been listed and correctly assigned one of the six IUCN Protected Area management categories, or has been listed as an 'Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measure', and been assigned one of the four IUCN governance types in the UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA).
Reference to the UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), with all data fields completed, accessible through the Protected Planet® portal. Sites not formally listed as Protected Areas under the formal WDPA dataset can be included by WCMC as a 'Conserved Area' category, for example as Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas, or as 'Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures'. The four governance types can be found in IUCN Governance of Protected Areas: from Understanding to Action, Best Practice Protected Areas Guideline Series No. 203.
GLS-V1.1-2.1.3
The site has a current management plan or equivalent that is used to guide management priorities and activities.
Management plan or equivalent. Work programmes and activities indicating conformity with management plan objectives and priorities.
GLS-V1.1-2.1.4
The major natural values and associated ecosystem services and cultural values of the site are clearly identified and understood.
Foundational documents or equivalent. Management plan or equivalent. Scientific research papers. Related databases. Reports on traditional and local knowledge, as appropriate. Feedback from stakeholders.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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:

  • Biodiversity values (e.g. threatened species, priority habitats or ecosystems)
  • Ecological processes
  • Landscape and connectivity values
  • Geological and geomorphological features
  • Paleontological values-Scenic values and outstanding natural beauty

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUES
Ecosystem services are the benefits that humans derive from ecosystems. Ecosystem services can be categorised as

  • (i) provisioning services (e.g. food, fuel, fibre)
  • (ii) regulating services (e.g. flood retention, water quality, carbon storage), and
  • (iii) supporting services (e.g. nutrient cycling; pollination).

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:

  • cultural practices, knowledge, songs, stories
  • places or features of cultural significance, sacred sites
  • built heritage, art, and relics
  • human remains
  • natural landforms, flora, fauna or minerals that have a cultural meaning

Each site may have distinctive cultural values that should be documented in the process of applying this Criterion.

Criterion 2.2
DESIGN FOR LONG - TERM CONSERVATION OF MAJOR SITE VALUES

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-2.2.1
The designated site is large enough and sufficiently connected to other habitats or ecosystems to achieve the goals and objectives for the site's major values for nature conservation.
Management planning documentation including maps. Consultation with site management. References to scientific research justifying conclusions. Consultation with relevant experts.
GLS-V1.1-2.2.2
The site is part of an identified conservation network which is designed to meet goals of representation, replication, connectivity and resilience.
Management planning documentation including maps. Site system plan or gap analysis. Consultation with site management.
GLS-V1.1-2.2.3
Where a major site value is 'ecological integrity': • The site contains an assemblage of native species and ecosystem types that is characteristic of the region, with intact ecological processes and trophic systems • The site is large enough and sufficiently well connected to sustain a viable species population and ecosystem processes in the long term. Where a major site value is the conservation of a species: • The site contains the full range of habitats required to sustain a viable population of the species or the ecological community in the long term, taking account of all relevant aspects of the species' life cycle (e.g. breeding areas, wintering grounds, safe migration routes) •The site is large enough and sufficiently well connected to sustain a viable population of the species in the long term. • Or, where the species range is too large to be protected within one designated area: a) The site is designed to protect one or more critical life history stage for a species. e.g. feeding, breeding, resting, migratory path / bottleneck b) The site contains sufficient areas of the key habitats that support the critical life history stage of the species c) The site is sufficiently well connected to other protected or managed areas that contain habitats the species needs to complete its life history.
Maps of site and surrounding area. Management planning documentation. Consultation with site management. References to scientific research justifying conclusions. Specific research projects on species and/or ecosystem types. Consultation with relevant experts.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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.

Criterion 2.3
UNDERSTAND THREATS AND CHALLENGES TO MAJOR SITE VALUES

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-2.3.1
Major current and potential threats to major natural values and associated ecosystem services and cultural values of the site are identified, understood and documented, and their location, extent and severity described in sufficient detail to enable effective planning and management to address them.
Management plan or equivalent listing threats for each major value. Documentation of consultation with relevant experts. Documented method and process for identifying threats.
GLS-V1.1-2.3.2
The likely impact of climate change on the major site values has been assessed, understood and documented.
Management plan or equivalent documenting climate change threats. Consultation with relevant experts.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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:

  1. Residential and commercial development within a site
  2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a site
  3. Energy production and mining within a site
  4. Transportation and service corridors within a site
  5. Biological resource use and harm within a site
  6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a site
  7. Natural system modifications
  8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes
  9. Pollution entering or generated within a site
  10. Geological events
  11. Climate change and severe weather
  12. Specific cultural and social threats
  13. Other

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.

Criterion 2.4
UNDERSTAND THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-2.4.1
The social and economic characteristics of the region that may be affected (positively or negatively) by the site's designation and/or current management have been identified and the location, extent and magnitude of effects of the site on social and economic characteristics have been goals and objectives. described in the management plan or equivalent.
Social impact report(s), assessments. Consultation with site management. Consultation with relevant experts Management plan or equivalent.
GLS-V1.1-2.4.2
The social and economic benefits and effects have been considered in the development of management goals and objectives for the site in the management plan or equivalent.
Assessment that benefits and impacts have been considered in the management plan or equivalent. Consultation with appropriate representatives of potentially affected rights-holders and other stakeholders.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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:

  1. cultural, spiritual, historical, and recreational values
  2. access (increased or decreased) for rights-holders, stakeholders and the public, and
  3. economic activity in the surrounding area.

Component 3
EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT

Criterion 3.1
DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-3.1.1
The site has a current management plan or functional equivalent which includes: a) the goals and objectives for management of the natural values and social and / or economic objectives (where relevant) identified in Component 2. b) the management strategies and activities to achieve these goals over the long term and an indication of the activities that are allowed or prohibited in the site and any zoning or temporal / spatial restrictions on access to or use of the site.
Management plan or functional equivalent. Evidence of consultation processes. Formal approval of the management plan or equivalent. The management plan should also document major natural values and associated ecosystem services and cultural values (2.1), and threats to these values (2.3) and the likely impact of climate change on values (2.4).
GLS-V1.1-3.1.2
The site can demonstrate that management activities and policies, and/or legislation and regulations are being implemented and are consistent with the management plan (or equivalent).
Annual work plan or equivalent. Consultation with site management.
GLS-V1.1-3.1.3
Adequate, functional and safe equipment and infrastructure is available and accessible to staff as appropriate to manage the site.
Documentation which may include photos, maintenance schedules for major equipment, visual inspections, etc.
GLS-V1.1-3.1.4
The site has adequate numbers of appropriately trained staff, led by an effective management team, to implement all aspects of its management plan in the long term.
Staff organisational chart and documents. Discussion with staff and local knowledgeable experts.
GLS-V1.1-3.1.5
Management efforts support equity, including gender equity, related to site management.
Staff organisational chart and documents. Reports or information on implementation of annual work plans. Discussion with staff and local knowledgeable experts
GLS-V1.1-3.1.6
Financial constraints are not threatening the capacity of management to achieve the site's objectives.
Reports or information on implementation of annual work programmes. Discussion with staff and local knowledgeable experts.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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:

  • Manage for change, not only for persistence
  • Reconsider goals and objectives, not just strategies
  • Adopt forward-looking and climate-informed goals and objectives
  • Integrate climate considerations into existing planning

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:

  • Adequate equipment and infrastructure appropriate to the context of the site is available and accessible to staff as appropriate to manage the site.
  • Equipment and infrastructure are well-maintained and replaced regularly.
  • The site has sufficient numbers of appropriately trained staff with adequate competences, appropriately deployed and led by an effective management team, to implement all aspects of its management plan.
  • Staff are supported, respected and nurtured, and staff development, employment and working conditions, health, safety and welfare are given a high priority by the management authority.
  • Mechanisms are in place to recruit and use volunteers, and to partner with other institutions that can provide institutional support.
  • The managing organisation makes effective use of resources, working in a structured and strategic way with defined goals, established systems and standards, and means for monitoring and improving performance.
  • Mechanisms are in place for securing funds (e.g. fundraising for grants, requesting government allocations, setting up trust funds), preparing and managing budgets, and ensuring cost.
  • Effective and efficient financial management of the site.
  • There is no evidence that financial constraints are threatening the capacity of management to achieve the site’s goals and objectives.

Criterion 3.2
MANAGE ECOLOGICAL CONDITION

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-3.2.1
Strategies and actions to maintain ecological attributes and processes (including natural disturbances) to maintain or enhance the site's major values are identified and implemented.
Relevant regional strategies. Management plan or equivalent. Annual work plan or equivalent. Consultation with site management. Operational plan.
GLS-V1.1-3.2.2
The site can demonstrate that management activities related to natural values are being implemented and are sufficient for the maintenance of the site's major natural values and ecological processes.
Relevant regional strategies. Management plan or equivalent. Annual work plan or equivalent. Consultation with site management. Operational plan.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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).

Criterion 3.3
MANAGE WITHIN THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE SITE

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-3.3.1
The social and economic context of the site has been incorporated into management, based on consideration of social and economic goals and objectives for the site, as established in Criterion 2.4.
Annual work plan or equivalent. Evidence of consideration of social and economic context in framing of objectives during the management planning process.
GLS-V1.1-3.3.2
Opportunities to enhance the social and economic benefit of the site to local communities (where consistent with conservation of major site values) are considered during reviews of management plan and through adaptive governance, management and planning processes.
Records of results of management's consultation with local stakeholders and rights-holders. Management plan or equivalent. Discussions with local stakeholders and community members.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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.

Criterion 3.4
MANAGE THREATS

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-3.4.1
The site management is implementing a work programme that identifies effective responses to each of the major threats to (a) major site values identified under Criterion 2.3 or (b) the achievement of the site's goals and objectives including long term and 'external' threats.
Annual work plan or equivalent. Management plan or equivalent. Discussions with local stakeholders and community members. Consultation with relevant experts.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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.

Criterion 3.5
EFFECTIVELY AND FAIRLY ENFORCE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-3.5.1
Patrol and surveillance systems, or equivalent, are in place where needed, are adequately set up with sufficient resources and effective operational procedures.
Records of patrol and surveillance activity, including frequency, coverage of key areas. Documentation of appropriate system of management of patrol and surveillance data.
GLS-V1.1-3.5.2
Legal or customary compliance mechanisms are supported including the equitable application of appropriate sanctions to offenders.
Documentation of compliance and enforcement system. Evidence of structured framework around compliance mechanism that ensures appropriate actions are taken in response to offences with more than one person involved in decision-making. Record of the results of prosecutions.
GLS-V1.1-3.5.3
Laws and regulations regarding the use of the site are accessible to civil society, stakeholders and rights-holders.
Evidence of relevant available information.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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.

Criterion 3.6
MANAGE ACCESS, RESOURCE USE AND VISITATION

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-3.6.1
The types and levels of permitted activities are clearly described, and are compatible with the conservation of major site values.
Documented description of permitted uses in management plan or equivalent. Consultation with site management. Environmental impact studies. Consultation with relevant experts.
GLS-V1.1-3.6.2
Where use and access are permitted: • Uses and access are managed to mini mise harm to the major site values, for example through permits, design, access control, or education. • The site's management strives to accommodate the needs of users, so far as this is compatible with the achievement of site objectives
Reference to site rules, bylaws, etc. Records of meetings of governing bodies, management committees, etc. Discussions with local stakeholders and community members.
GLS-V1.1-3.6.3
The nature and level of permitted access for visitors are clearly described and are compatible with the conservation of major site values and objectives.
Documented description of permitted visitor access in management plan or equivalent, or tourism management plan. Consultation with site management. Impact studies, visitor records. Consultation with experts.
GLS-V1.1-3.6.4
Where visitor access is permitted: • Visitor impacts are managed to minimise harm to major site values, for example through permits, access control, the provision and siting of facilities, education and enforcement • There is no evidence that the impacts of visitors are majorly threatening the achievement of the site's objectives • Visitor services and facilities are appropriate to the character, values and use of the site • Visitor services and facilities meet specified safety standards • Visitor services and facilities meet reasonable standards of environmental sustainability • Interpretive, educational and information services for visitors meet visitors' needs (e.g. the needs of different audiences or age groups) • The tourism industry within the site is managed to support the site's objectives • Consideration has been given to the use of the site by disadvantaged people, and their needs have been adequately taken into account.
Documented description of provisions for visitor management. Visitor records. Visitor response surveys. Consultation with site management. Consultation with experts. Consultation with representatives of local community. Consultation with representatives of tourism industry within the site's boundaries. Report or other documentation in relation to the provision made for access by, and responses to the needs of disabled and disadvantaged people. Where safety standards are absent for a country or a region, the EAGL should apply reasonable judgement to the safety protocols used by the site.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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.

Criterion 3.7
MEASURE SUCCESS

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-3.7.1
For each of the major site values identified under Criterion 2.1, a monitoring system is in place and a set of performance measures has been defined and documented, which provides an objective basis for determining whether the associated value is being successfully protected.
Monitoring programme documentation. Discussion with site managers. Consultation with relevant experts.
GLS-V1.1-3.7.2
A threshold level has been specified and assessed in relation to each set of performance measures that relate to natural values, that if achieved, is considered to demonstrate objectively that the associated major site value is being successfully conserved. As appropriate, threshold determination can include the assessment of conservation impact based on change in major values over a specified time period compared to those anticipated without the protected and conserved area.
Monitoring programme documentation. Discussion with site managers. Consultation with relevant experts.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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.

Component 4
SUCCESSFUL CONSERVATION OUTCOMES

Criterion 4.1
DEMONSTRATE CONSERVATION OF MAJOR NATURAL VALUES

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-4.1.1
The site meets or exceeds the performance thresholds for the conservation of major natural values, specified in Indicator 3.7.2, or meets the requirements specified in Indicator 4.1.2.
The achievement of each natural value threshold should be documented through the site’s established monitoring programme. Thresholds should establish the condition of the natural value as being good, fair or in poor condition[13] (see Woodley, 2013 for examples).
GLS-V1.1-4.1.2
The EAGL has recognised the external context in which the site operates as being especially challenging, and management is responding to prevent loss of the value.
The achievement of each natural value threshold should be documented through the site’s established monitoring programme. In rare cases, where the EAGL determines that extreme external circumstances have impaired the condition of the natural value, consideration may be given to extraordinary efforts to maintain the value despite the extreme circumstances. For example, park staff might have worked diligently to protect rhinos despite the presence of organised poaching gangs. Rhino populations might be in poor conditions, but would have disappeared without the intervention of park staff.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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.

Criterion 4.2
DEMONSTRATE CONSERVATION OF MAJOR ASSOCIATED ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-4.2.1
The site meets or exceeds the performance measures for the conservation of ecosystem services, as specified in Indicator 3.7.1.
The achievement of each ecosystem service performance measures should be documented through the site's established monitoring programme.
GLS-V1.1-4.2.2
The provision of ecosystem services does not significantly impair the ecological values of the site.
Assessment against the monitoring data. Discussion with local experts.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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):

  • Protected Area Benefits Assessment Tool<sup>25</sup>
  • TESSA: A toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance<sup>26</sup>
  • InVEST (Integrated valuation of ecosystem services and trade-offs)<sup>27</sup>
  • Costing Nature<sup>28</sup>: Where communities and site managers have identified specific ecosystem services as values of the site, they should be measured and assessed as part of the site’s monitoring system.

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.

Criterion 4.3
DEMONSTRATE CONSERVATION OF MAJOR CULTURAL VALUES

Generic Indicator
Same Means of Verification & Notes
Related SDGs
GLS-V1.1-4.3.1
The site meets or exceeds the performance measures for the conservation of cultural values, as specified in Indicator 3.7.1.
Discussion with local experts. The achievement of each cultural value performance measure should be documented through the site's established monitoring programme. The maintenance and enhancement of identified cultural values should be part of the site's monitoring plan.
● Application Phase ● Candidate Phase
Criteria Guidance Notes

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

Please note that our website is in a BETA phase and is still undergoing final testing before our official launch.
IUCN Green List

IUCN Green List
Protected | Conserved Areas


Subscribe to our mailing list

Privacy Policy Legal Sitemap

© 2020 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature
Site by Design Factory
This website is possible thanks to the support from:

Join the conversation


IUCN Green List