Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Information Module

Methodology Description

Rapid Assessment and prioritization of protected area

management (RAPPAM)
Written with assistance and comments from: Alexander Belokurov (WWF) and Jamison
Ervin (TNC)

1.1 Organisation
WWF

1.2 Primary methodology reference

Ervin, J. (2003b) WWF: Rapid Assessment and prioritization of Protected Area Management
(RAPPAM) Methodology. WWF Gland, Switzerland WWF (no date) 'Metodología para la
evaluación y priorización rápidas del manejo de áreas protegidas (RAPPAM).' WWF.

1.3 Brief description of methodology

The RAPPAM methodology is designed for broad­level comparisons among many protected
areas which together make a protected areas network or system. It can:
Ø Identify management strengths, constraints and weaknesses.
Ø Analyse the scope, severity, prevalence and distribution of a variety of threats and
pressures.
Ø Identify areas of high ecological and social importance and vulnerability.
Ø Indicate the urgency and conservation priority for individual protected areas.
Ø Help to develop and prioritise appropriate policy interventions and follow­up steps to
improve protected area management effectiveness.

It can also answer a number of important questions:

Ø What are the main threats affecting the protected areas system, and how serious are they?
Ø How do protected areas compare with one another in terms of infrastructure and
management capacity? And how do they compare in effectively producing outputs and
conservation outcomes as a result of their management?
Ø What is the urgency for taking actions in each protected area?
Ø What are the important management gaps in the PA system.
Ø How well do national and local policies support the effective management of protected
areas? Are there gaps in legislation and what are the governance improvements that are
needed?
Ø What are the most strategic interventions to improve the entire system?

Higgins­Zogib and Lacerda (2006)

1.4 Purposes
ü for prioritisation and resource allocation
ü to raise awareness and support
ü to improve management (adaptive management) – at system level

Source: Leverington et al., 2008. ‘Management Effectiveness evaluation in protected areas – a global study. Supplementary
Report No1: Overview of approaches and methodologies.’ The University of Queensland, Gatton, TNC, WWF, IUCN­WCPA,
AUSTRALIA.
 Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Information Module

Methodology Description

1.5 Objectives and application

RAPPAM provides policy makers and protected area authorities with a relatively quick and
easy method to identify major trends and issues that need to be addressed for improving
management effectiveness in any given system or group of protected areas. Through
conducting RAPPAM assessments, authorities responsible for managing systems of protected
areas have been able to
Ø analyse the range of major threats facing their protected areas system and to get a broad
overview of the most pressing management issues they face;
Ø look at how the system or group as a whole is functioning and performing; and
Ø to agree on needed corrective steps that will lead to improved system­level management
effectiveness.

RAPPAM has been implemented in some 40 countries and over 1000 protected areas in
Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. Useful reports of the status of
protected area systems or groups are produced (see list of references at the end of this
section), suggesting priority protected areas in terms of the values and vulnerabilities and
analysing the trends in protected area management issues.

1.6 Origins
The system was designed originally to assess networks of protected areas. It is based on the
WCPA PAME Framework. It was developed by WWF between 1999 and 2002, with field
testing in China, France, Cameroon Algeria and Gabon.

1.7 How the methodology is implemented

The following material has been extracted from Higgins­Zogib and Lacerda (2006, p.59)

‘There are five steps in the RAPPAM process:

Ø Determine the scope of the assessment;
Ø Assess existing information for each protected area;
Ø Administer the RAPPAM questionnaire;
Ø Analyse the findings; and
Ø Identify next steps and recommendations.

In general the most thorough and effective approach to implementing this methodology is to
hold an interactive workshop or series of workshops in which protected area managers, policy
makers, and other stakeholders participate fully in evaluating the protected areas, analysing
the results and identifying subsequent next steps and priorities.

RAPPAM workshops usually take three days. Two­day workshops have been held, but in
these cases the agenda has been very tight with little time available for group and plenary
discussions. The costs depend largely on where the workshop is held. Where possible it is
advisable to hold the workshop inside a protected area as many of the discussion points
during the workshop will be represented right outside the door. However, these logistics are
usually the choice of the government ministry (or other protected area authority), who will be
the lead player in the workshop.

Getting the right participants to the workshop is critical – and the broader the stakeholder
group present, the more true the results. It is important to have at least the manager of each
park present at the workshop, as well as top­level participation from the appropriate
government ministry. If deemed appropriate, donors can be invited, in the hope that they
engage in helping with follow­up steps, as can other international and local NGOs present in

Source: Leverington et al., 2008. ‘Management Effectiveness evaluation in protected areas – a global study. Supplementary
Report No1: Overview of approaches and methodologies.’ The University of Queensland, Gatton, TNC, WWF, IUCN­WCPA,
AUSTRALIA.
 Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Information Module

Methodology Description

the country or region. This helps build support for implementing recommendations that stem
from the workshop. Other stakeholders such as community representatives, tourism operators
and university staff strengthen the results. And even if in the end, there is disagreement
between park staff and community members for example, points raised by the community can
still be reflected in the RAPPAM report and taken into consideration.

Lessons learned
Ø Ensure the government protected area authority leads the assessment process.
Ø Develop partnerships with other NGOs present in the country or region.
Ø Choose a useful assessment scope: RAPPAM is seen at its best when a larger number of
protected areas are included in the assessment.
Ø Administer the questionnaire through interactive workshops.
Ø Think carefully about assessment objectives and adapt the method to local needs:
Ø Launch the report at an event if possible.
Ø Make clear, concrete, do­able recommendations.
Ø Ensure participation and engagement of local communities and other relevant
stakeholders in assessments, but plan carefully for their input.’

1.8 Elements and indicators

The questionnaire begins with introductory context questions on values and threats/
vulnerability, followed by questions aimed at the protected area level and the system level.
Questions are divided into a number of headings.

Table 1: Indicators for the RAPPAM methodology

WCPA Sections Questions
Elements
1. Background includes specific management objectives and critical
management activities
Context 2. Pressures and including trend, extent, impact, permanence, and probability of
threats past and future threats
Context 3. Biological Number of rare, threatened or endangered species
importance Relative level of biodiversity
Degree of endemism
Critical landscape function
Extent of full range of plant and animal diversity
Contribution to the representativeness of PA system
Minimum viable populations of key species
Consistency of structural diversity with historic norms
Historic range has been greatly diminished ecosystems
Extent of full range of natural processes and disturbance
regimes
Context 4. Socio­economic Employment for local communities
importance Dependence of communities on PA resources for their
subsistence
Community development opportunities through sustainable
resource use
Religious or spiritual significance
Unusual aesthetic features
Plant species of high social, cultural or economic importance
Animal species of high social, cultural or economic importance
Recreational value
Ecosystem services and benefits to communities
Educational and/or scientific value

Source: Leverington et al., 2008. ‘Management Effectiveness evaluation in protected areas – a global study. Supplementary
Report No1: Overview of approaches and methodologies.’ The University of Queensland, Gatton, TNC, WWF, IUCN­WCPA,
AUSTRALIA.
 Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Information Module

Methodology Description
WCPA Sections Questions
Elements
Context 5. Vulnerability Low law enforcement
Common bribery and corruption
Civil unrest and/or instability
Conflicting cultural practices, beliefs and traditional uses
High market value of PA resources
Accessibility for illegal activities
Demand for vulnerable resources
Pressure to unduly exploit resources
Difficult recruitment and retention of employees
Difficulty in monitoring illegal activities within the PA
Planning 6. Objectives PA objectives provide for the protection and maintenance of
biodiversity.
Specific biodiversity­related objectives are clearly stated in the
management plan.
The management policies and plans are consistent with the PA
objectives.
PA employees and administrators understand the PA objectives
and policies.
Local communities support the overall objectives of the PA
Planning 7. Legal security The protected area has long­term legally­binding protection.
There are no unsettled disputes regarding land tenure or use
rights.
Boundary demarcation is adequate to meet the PA objectives.
Staff and financial resources are adequate to conduct critical
law enforcement activities.
Conflicts with the local community are resolved fairly and
effectively
Planning 8. PA site design The siting of the PA is consistent with the PA objectives.
and planning The layout and configuration of the PA optimises the
conservation of biodiversity.
The PA zoning system is adequate to achieve the PA
objectives.
The land use in the surrounding landscape enables effective PA
management.
The protected area is linked to another area of conserved or
protected land
Inputs 9. Staff The level of staffing is sufficient to effectively manage the area.
Staff members have adequate skills to conduct critical
management activities.
Training and development opportunities are appropriate to the
needs of the staff.
Staff performance and progress on targets are periodically
reviewed.
Staff employment conditions are sufficient to retain high­quality
staff.

Inputs 10. There are adequate means of communication between field and
Communication office staff.
and information Existing ecological and socio­economic data are adequate for
inputs management planning.
There are adequate means of collecting new data.
There are adequate systems for processing and analysing data.
There is effective communication with local communities.

Source: Leverington et al., 2008. ‘Management Effectiveness evaluation in protected areas – a global study. Supplementary
Report No1: Overview of approaches and methodologies.’ The University of Queensland, Gatton, TNC, WWF, IUCN­WCPA,
AUSTRALIA.
 Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Information Module

Methodology Description
WCPA Sections Questions
Elements
Inputs 11. Infrastructure Transportation infrastructure is adequate to perform critical
management activities.
Field equipment is adequate to perform critical management
activities.
Staff facilities are adequate to perform critical management
activities.
Maintenance and care of equipment is adequate to ensure long­
term use.
Visitor facilities are appropriate to the level of visitor use.

Inputs 12. Finances Funding in the past 5 years has been adequate to conduct
critical management activities.
Funding for the next 5 years is adequate to conduct critical
management activities.
Financial management practices enable efficient and effective
PA management.
The allocation of expenditures is appropriate to PA priorities and
objectives.
The long­term financial outlook for the PA is stable.

Process 13. Management There is a comprehensive, relatively recent written management

planning plan.
There is a comprehensive inventory of natural and cultural
resources.
There is an analysis of, and strategy for addressing, PA threats
and pressures.
A detailed work plan identifies specific targets for achieving
management objectives.
The results of research and monitoring are routinely
incorporated into planning

Process 14. Management There is clear internal organisation.

decision­making Management decision making is transparent.
practices PA staff regularly collaborate with partners, local communities
and other organisations.
Local communities participate in decisions that affect them.
There is effective communication between all levels of PA staff
and administration
Process 15. Research, The impact of legal and illegal uses of the PA are accurately
monitoring, and monitored and recorded.
evaluation Research on key ecological issues is consistent with the needs
of the PA.
Research on key social issues is consistent with the needs of
the PA.
PA staff members have regular access to recent scientific
research and advice.
Critical research and monitoring needs are identified and
prioritised.
Outputs 16. Outputs Threat prevention, detection and enforcement
Site restoration and mitigation efforts
Wildlife or habitat management
Community outreach and educational efforts
Visitor and tourist management
Infrastructure development
Management planning and inventorying
Staff monitoring, supervision and evaluation
Staff training and development
Research and monitoring outputs

Source: Leverington et al., 2008. ‘Management Effectiveness evaluation in protected areas – a global study. Supplementary
Report No1: Overview of approaches and methodologies.’ The University of Queensland, Gatton, TNC, WWF, IUCN­WCPA,
AUSTRALIA.
 Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Information Module

Methodology Description
WCPA Sections Questions
Elements
System­ 17. Protected The PA system adequately represents the full diversity of
level area system ecosystems within the region.
questions design The PA system adequately protects against the extinction or
extirpation of any species.
The PA system consists primarily of exemplary and intact
ecosystems.
Sites of high conservation value for key species are
systematically protected.
The PA system maintains natural processes at a landscape
level.
The PA system includes the protection of transition areas
between ecosystems.
The PA system includes the full range of successional diversity.
Sites of high biodiversity are systematically protected.
Sites of high endemism are systematically protected.
The layout and configuration of the PA system optimises the
conservation of biodiversity
System­ 18. Protected National PA policies clearly articulate a vision, goals and
level area policies objectives for the PA system. The area of land protected is
questions adequate to maintain natural processes at a landscape level.
There is a demonstrated commitment to protecting a viable and
representative PA network.
There is a comprehensive inventory of the biological diversity
throughout the region.
There is an assessment of the historical range of variability of
ecosystem types in the region.
There are restoration targets for underrepresented and/or
greatly diminished ecosystems.
There is ongoing research on critical PA­related issues.
The PA system is periodically reviewed for gaps and
weaknesses (e.g. gap analyses).
There is an effective training and capacity­building programme
for PA staff.
PA management, including management effectiveness, is
routinely evaluated.
System­ 19. Policy PA­related laws complement PA objectives and promote
level environment management effectiveness.
questions There is sufficient commitment and funding to effectively
administer the PA system
Environmental protection goals are incorporated into all aspects
of policy development.
There is a high degree of communication between natural
resource departments.
There is effective enforcement of PA­related laws and
ordinances at all levels.
National policies promote widespread environmental education
at all levels.
National policies promote sustainable land management.
National policies promote an array of land conservation
mechanisms.
There is adequate environmental training for governmental
employees at all levels.
National policies foster dialogue and participation with civic and
environmental NGOs

1.9 Scoring and analysis

Most questions use a standard 4­selection scale (no=0, mostly no=1, mostly yes=3, yes=5),
where ‘yes’ describes an ideal situation. Threats (vulnerability) are rated according to their
extent, impact and trend.

Source: Leverington et al., 2008. ‘Management Effectiveness evaluation in protected areas – a global study. Supplementary
Report No1: Overview of approaches and methodologies.’ The University of Queensland, Gatton, TNC, WWF, IUCN­WCPA,
AUSTRALIA.
 Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Information Module

Methodology Description

Analysis of the data is usually presented as comparisons among the sites in the protected area
system. Many different analyses are presented in the reports. Important outputs include lists
and graphs of the most common threats, management strengths and management weaknesses;
prioritisation of parks with respect to their vulnerability and importance; and other
comparative information about specific aspects of management.

1.10 Further reading and reports

See reference list for full referencing of the following reports in the bibliography or refer to
the WWF Website:

(Anonymous no date; Department of Forests and WIldlife Sikkim and WWF India 2003;
Diqiang et al. 2003; Duguman 2006; Ervin 2003a; Ervin 2004a; b; Goodman 2003; Higgins­
Zogib 2004; Higgins­Zogib and Lacerda 2006; Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos
Recursos Naturais Renováveis and WWF­Brasil 2007; Lacerda et al. 2004; Ministry of
Natural Resources and the Environment 2006; Nemekhjargal and Belokurov 2005; Nepali
2006; Simões 2005; Simoes and Numa de Oliveria 2003; Stanciu and Steindlegger 2006;
Steindlegger and Kalem 2005; Tacón et al. 2005; Tshering 2003; Tyrlyshkin et al. 2003;
WWF 2001; 2004; no date; WWF India 2006)

Download the RAPPAM methodology in English, Spanish or Portuguese.

Click here for further information on the RAPPAM tool.

Source: Leverington et al., 2008. ‘Management Effectiveness evaluation in protected areas – a global study. Supplementary
Report No1: Overview of approaches and methodologies.’ The University of Queensland, Gatton, TNC, WWF, IUCN­WCPA,
AUSTRALIA.