Management Effectiveness Assessment of the System of Protected Areas in Cambodia

Methodology

Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM)

This assessment followed the Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management Methodology - RAPPAM - developed by WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) RAPPAM is structured around the six key assessment elements recommended by the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness. RAPPAM has undergone extensive testing and development and has been successfully carried out in over 20 countries.

RAPPAM is a rapid and qualitative tool based on subjective assessments by individuals with extensive knowledge of the situation on the ground. This particular assessment was conducted during a three-day workshop in Phnom Penh (September 20-22, 2004) with 80 participants. Most of the participants were staff of the Ministry of Environment including most protected area directors, deputy directors, and other technical and support staff. Staff of the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management Project (BPAMP) and representatives of international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) also participated, including Conservation International (CI), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Fauna and Flora International (FFI), and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).

The workshop included instruction sessions, presentations, group discussions, and plenary sessions. During the workshop, participants assessed the six key elements contained in WCPA’s Assessment Framework. A questionnaire with 19 questions, subdivided into a number of more detailed items, was applied.

Participants were divided into five groups, based on broad country-level biogeographic units: Eastern Protected Areas, Northern Plains and Forests, Tonle Sap/Mekong River Areas, Cardamom/Elephant Mountain Ranges, and Coastal Areas. Within each of the five groups one questionnaire was completed for each protected area. Detailed guidance notes were made available for explanation and clarification. Answers to the questionnaires were compiled during the workshop and the results summarised in charts and graphs. These were discussed in plenary sessions for peer review, validation and cross-checking.

The analysis of context included assessments at both the national level and the individual protected area level. On the national level, participants identified the most important pressures and threats to the system as a whole. Also assessed were such factors as the primary sources of vulnerability in the system and the general policy environment for protected areas in Cambodia. At the level of individual protected areas, participants assessed policies, legislation and regulations and applied relative scores for both the biological and socio-economic importance of each area.

In the analysis of design and planning, participants reviewed the adequacy of management and operational plans with respect to protected area objectives and the overall understanding of the objectives by protected areas managers and other stakeholders. They also rated the legal security of each area by assessing the degree of legal protection, the extent of boundary demarcation, and the existence and intensity of unsettled land disputes. Finally, they assessed the layout and configuration of each protected area, its zoning, and its degree of connectivity with other protected areas.

With respect to inputs, participants reviewed the quantity, quality, and adequacy of staff, the adequacy of communications systems, data collection and analysis in support of management, the existing infrastructure (such as facilities, means of transportation, equipment and maintenance), past and current funding levels, and the adequacy and transparency of financial management practices.

In assessing management processes, participants evaluated the existence and comprehensiveness of management plans, annual workplans, the management decision-making process, stakeholder participation, and the existence and effectiveness of research, monitoring and evaluation programmes at the site level.

Finally, in reviewing management outputs and conservation outcomes, participants looked at the specific products, services, and conservation results accomplished by the staff involved in protected area management. The adequacy of these products and results were then assessed against protected area objectives and priority activities that had been identified in management plans and workplans.

To complement the RAPPAM assessment, a one-day workshop focusing on the spatial aspects of protected area management was conducted immediately following the three-day RAPPAM exercise. Involving the same participants and working groups as the RAPPAM workshop, the primary focus of this additional exercise was on mapping values and threat patterns in each protected area.