Site Assessment

SITE ASSESSMENT TOOL

The Site Assessment Tool enables WHSRN sites to systematically review their state of conservation, the threats they are facing, the responses needed and the effectiveness of site management. The results of the assessments will lead to priority setting and strategic actions for WHSRN to respond effectively to the main needs and issues of the network, with the ultimate goal of conserving healthy shorebird populations.

The 64 sites enrolled in the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network are key places for shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere, and having their landowners commit to their conservation is a great achievement. Unfortunately, shorebird conservation is not guaranteed with this, and the steady decline of shorebird populations can attest to that. Despite their protected status, virtually all sites face problems: from tourism pressures to water scarcity, climate change, invasive species, lack of funds for management and law enforcement; the list is long. By understanding these issues and having a network-wide picture of the status of the sites, WHSRN will be better placed to set priorities for network-wide conservation action and have more reliable information for targeted advocacy and fundraising. But to do this a systematic approach is needed. Therefore, WHSRN has designed the Site Asessment Tool, a useful instrument for conservation planning processes of individual sites as well as for the whole network.

The site assessment tool has the following main goals:

• Review the state of conservation of WHSRN sites.
• Identify the critical threats at the sites and the conservation actions in need.
• Assess the effectiveness of site management and conservation efforts.
• Help sites engage in adaptive management by identifying priorities for action, information gaps, monitoring needs, and successes and failures in management and conservation actions.
• Provide standardized information for a network-wide analysis of the status of sites, for use in priority setting, conservation action planning and advocacy.
• Contribute to wider protected area monitoring schemes, especially the Important Bird Area monitoring in the Americas and the assessment of status of Ramsar Sites.

Just like WHSRN, many organizations are developing and implementing frameworks to monitor and evaluate conservation efforts around the world. The effectiveness of protected areas is one of main areas of concern, given that many of them are losing the values for which they were set aside. The science of these evaluation frameworks is still evolving, being tested and refined in different areas. The WHSRN Site Assessment Tool has been built by incorporating approaches constructed by IUCN, BirdLife, TNC and WWF with feedback from our network and site partners; thus contributing to develop this critical aspect of conservation science and monitor the state of protected areas around the world. It has already been tested in September and October 2005 by the pilot sites of Copper River Delta, the Upper Bay of Panama and the Fraser River Estuary. The WHSRN assessments will contribute directly to the monitoring of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the Americas promoted by BirdLife International and to the evaluation of the status of Ramsar sites


Structure of the assessment
Why use the Site Assessment tool?
How can sites carry out the assessment?
What will WHSRN do with the results?
References


Structure of the assessment

The Site Assessment Tool is an Excel workbook which every WHSRN site completes. There are 5 worksheets (Protected Area Tracking Tool, State, Threats, Conservation Actions and Basic Info) to be filled in digital format, plus additional Introduction, Scoring Guidance and a Glossary sections. The worksheets have been designed so that it is easy to complete them electronically during a workshop while projecting onto a screen; but printing each of them is also possible.

The document "WHSRN Site Assessment Framework" provides further reading on the assessment tool, including background, a literature review, objectives, rationale, limitations, and references. However, all the instructions that are needed are reflected in the Excel workbook.

The site assessment is based on BirdLife International's Global Framework for Monitoring Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and WWF's Tracking Tool for Assessing Management Effectiveness in Wetland Protected Areas -especially designed for Ramsar sites-, both of which follow the framework for evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas from IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). The Five-S Framework for Site Conservation by The Nature Conservancy is an important source for some aspects of the assessment as well.

The IBA monitoring uses the widely adopted Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework, with a standardized way to assign scores for the status and trends of IBA biodiversity ('state'), threats ('pressure') and conservation actions ('response'). The tracking tool for wetland protected areas complements this framework by qualifying the many elements of management of protected areas, categorized by the WCPA framework in criteria of Context, Planning, Inputs, Processes, Outputs and Outcomes. The Five-S framework was used as a model for the evaluation of the 'state' component of the assessment through the concepts of conservation targets and ecological integrity, which permit to qualify the conservation state of sites by key ecological attributes important for shorebirds at each site. The IUCN Authority files for Threats and Conservation Actions -sets of standard categories used for Red list assessments of threatened species- are used in the assessment, although some additions have been made, mostly from the Conservation Measures Partnership (Salzer et al., 2005) in favor of comprehensiveness. The breadth of the topics covered is large, but such a comprehensive approach is needed to better understand the problems and issues at the site scale and network scale. We have strived to make a balance between the information needs, the simplicity of the tool and the need to avoid duplication of efforts so that the most information is extracted with the least burden on site partners.

The assessment uses a qualitative scoring system and asks sparingly for quantitative data. This scoring scheme makes it possible to integrate a wide range of information, which may often be qualitative rather than quantitative, and capture valid general impressions, rather than precise measurements, of the status of sites. However, the scores are not an end in itself in the sense that the intention is not to "rank" WHSRN sites, and should not be looked out of context given their limitations and possibilities for distortion.

An additional value of the Site Assessment comes when a second assessment is done and comparisons of progress and change can be easily made. We expect that sites will be able to carry out assessments every three years.

Why use the Site Assessment tool?

Evaluation may sound boring and with a negative connotation - not so here. The Site Assessment Tool should be seen primarily as a tool to assist site partners with their site conservation objectives, not as a system for ranking sites and managers for their performance. The assessment findings will provide WHSRN with invaluable information for advocacy for advancing shorebird conservation, especially for issues that affect multiple sites and where WHSRN can be a catalyst for action.

WHSRN has been successful at incorporating numerous sites throughout the hemisphere during the last 20 years. Unfortunately, the network has not established a system to keep track of the evolution of sites since they are designated, so the actions of the network at the site level are currently based on fragmentary and/or old information. Today, in order to become more strategic in our actions, garner more support and funding, WHSRN needs to make a current inventory of the status of its sites, and at the same time become more accountable on our performance, both on shorebird conservation and on our contribution to sustainable development. The Site Assessment Tool works in that direction, but its success depends on the involvement of every site in the network.

The assessment itself is a very useful tool for each site, because it provides an overview of its status that can be easily used to raise red flags on issues of concern, establish management priorities, report achievements and successes, identify research, monitoring and data collection priorities, and provide facts and figures for education, awareness, management, fundraising and advocacy. The assessment is designed to be built upon the consensus of site managers, experts and stakeholders interested in the conservation of the site. This makes its findings strong, reliable and useful as planning instruments. However, the assessment will generally be too coarse to replace other valuable in-depth site evaluations or detailed management plans. Nonetheless, site managers will find the analysis useful in putting them in context with the rest of the Network.

The network-wide analysis of the assessments will help sites answer interesting questions like: Do other sites share this similar problem? What is going on at the sites with which ours shares species? Can we relate some decline in shorebird populations to problems at another site? Are there ideas about conservation actions to be tried? Are there geographic patterns evident? Are there innovative institutional approaches tried in other sites that we could learn from?

We recognize that shorebird conservation, although a priority for the sites enrolled in the network, is not their only objective as protected areas. On the other hand our sites range from small refuges to large coalitions of different protected areas that joined together to form the site, like Great Salt Lake or San Francisco Bay. Therefore, our tool should work with all these circumstances, and be something useful beyond shorebird conservation. For that reason, the tool goes beyond asking how shorebirds are doing at the site and delves into many other topics of protected areas.

The reach of the Site Assessments goes beyond the narrow field of WHSRN. We have partnered with Birdlife and work closely with WWF, Ramsar and the protected area agencies of the WHSRN countries to streamline this tool into their planning processes so that it doesn't become an additional load but an opportunity for synergy. Thus, the WHSRN assessments will contribute directly to the monitoring of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the Americas and to the evaluation of the status of Ramsar sites, an important collaboration since many of our sites share those designations as well.


How can sites carry out the assessment?

It is very simple. The WHSRN points of contact for every site are asked to coordinate the synthesis of information and the completion of the assessment. The assessment relies on the available information site partners have at the time and does not require additional information to be collected. In that sense, it should not constitute an unrealistic or overwhelming task for site partners and one that can be sustainable in time.

At the least, each site is expected to fill in the Protected Area Tracking Tool and the Basic Info sections, which provide a broad picture of multiple issues at the site. However, all sites are strongly encouraged to fill in the State, Threats and Conservation Actions worksheets, because these sections provide invaluable insight about the types of pressures affecting the sites, as well as to the interventions that are needed.

The assessments are built on the principle that site monitoring and evaluation is participatory, so the assessment should involve stakeholders interested in the conservation of the site, from scientists to managers to local authorities and communities. The end goal is to build consensus around the answers and the scoring and arrive at a final accepted version. The completion of the workbook can be carried out in several ways:

A whole-day workshop (estimated time to complete the workbook) where different participants (site managers and stakeholders interested in the conservation of the site) aided by a facilitator discuss and agree on the answers. This is a useful format for sites that do not have a wealth of information to begin with, so the assessment can serve as a knowledge inventory as well.

Several experts carry out an information review and fill out the assessment independently. These individual assessments are later compiled and the result is validated by a larger group of stakeholders during a workshop, or electronically if unable to meet. This is a useful format for sites that already have a large amount of information, where it is more effective for a small group of people to review the existing information at first and reflect it on the assessment.

A variation of the latter, where several experts convene in a workshop and fill out the assessment as a group. This is later validated by a larger group of stakeholders in a larger workshop. This option is recommendable when experts themselves can easily convene physically.

The assessment is filled by the site manager/site point of contact independently and then it is validated by stakeholders. This is the least desirable of the options because it is the least participatory. In the assessment form, site partners need not be wary of reporting problems in fear of it being "badly ranked", de-listed as a WHSRN site or lowering down of category; the most important thing is for WHSRN to understand what is happening and have the information necessary to help sites. Site points of contact are requested to voice any confidentiality or sensitivity concerns in the assessment form so that WHSRN takes the necessary precautions with the use of that information.

The WHSRN Executive Office has a limited level of assistance available to enable sites to carry out their assessments. On the other hand, BirdLife Partners (National Audubon Society, Bird Studies Canada, Nature Canada) are also committed to collaborate in the process, as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in individual refuges and the Canadian Wildlife Service.

In order to facilitate the completion of the assessment, the WHSRN Executive Office will "pre-fill" it in for each site with the existing data available from 3 authoritative sources: WHSRN site profiles, IBA Fact sheets and Ramsar Information Sheets.

If you want to start an assessment at your site, please write to Iván Darío Valencia at the WHSRN Executive Office, for the tool to be pre-filled for your site and if you shall need assistance from the Office or WHSRN partners in doing so. Our goal is to have at least 20 sites with ongoing or completed assessments by November 2006. You can help us achieve this goal!


What will WHSRN do with the results?

The WHSRN Executive Office will carry out the analysis network-wide and report back to the different sites and WHSRN partners. Data relevant to the IBA monitoring will be fed into the World Bird Database maintained by BirdLife. The results would also most certainly be facilitated to the national protected area agencies responsible for the sites, as well as to the Ramsar Convention, for those WHSRN sites that are Ramsar sites

For WHSRN, the analysis will provide input to other WSHRN initiatives like the Species Action Plans, help with advocacy and projects to address common issues of concern at many sites, exchange of best management practices between sites, communication and public awareness initiatives, among others.

Since this will be the first application of the Site Assessment and the Birdlife framework in the Americas, changes are very likely to be suggested for the next round of assessment of WHSRN sites. Lessons will be learned about what approaches work best for monitoring and conserving sites across the world. These lessons need to be documented, analyzed, interpreted and published - and fed back into strategies for site conservation.



References

Bennun, L.; L. Fishpool, S. Nagy and I. Burfield. 2005. Monitoring Important Bird Areas: A global framework. Version 7 19-07-05. BirdLife International. (Unpublished) Chatterjee, A.; J. Pittock. 2005. Assessing Management Effectiveness in Wetland protected Areas. A tracking tool. Draft version (unpublished)

Ervin, J. 2003. WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology. WWF. Gland, Switzerland. Click here.

Hockings, M.; Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (2000). Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing the Management of Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. x + 121pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/pubs/guidelines.htm#effectiveness

IUCN. IUCN Conservation Actions Authority File Version 1.0. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sis/authority.htm

IUCN. IUCN Threats Authority File Version 2.1. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sis/authority.htm

Parrish, D.; D. Braun and R. Unnasch. 2003. Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring Ecological Integrity within Protected Areas. Bioscience 53:9, 851-860. http://www.iabin.net/binary_docs/meeting_pa-tn_nov2004/are_we_conserving.pdf

Salzer, Dan and Nick Salasky. 2005. Taxonomy of conservation actions (version 13 June 2005). Conservation Measures Partnership. http://www.conservationmeasures.org/CMP/Site_Page.cfm?PageID=17

Salzer, Dan and Nick Salasky. 2005b. Taxonomy of direct threats (version 13 June 2005). Conservation Measures Partnership. http://www.conservationmeasures.org/CMP/Site_Page.cfm?PageID=17

The Nature Conservancy. 2003. The Five-S Framework for Site Conservation: A Practitioner's Handbook for Site Conservation Planning and Measuring Conservation Success. http://nature.org/aboutus/howwework/cbd/science/art14309.html

The Nature Conservancy. 2005. Conservation Action Planning Workbook. Version 4b. http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cap/toolbox

WHSRN,
P.O. Box 1770,
Manomet, MA, 02345 USA
Tel: (508) 224-6521; Fax: (508) 224-9220
WHSRN@Manomet.org

This page was last updated April 7th, 2006