1. Assessing Co-management in Protected Areas in the Northern Territory: Lessons for Marine Protected Areas Central Land Council Arturo Izurieta, Natasha Stacey & Stephen Garnett Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods

2. Outline Background and Rationale Action Research Process to develop a Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation (PME) Framework Results to Build a PME Framework in NT Parks for assessing co-management –Management themes and indicators –Evaluation framework –Costs and benefits Lessons and challenges

3. Partnership not equal in power and capacities Poor shared objectives for management Past focus on biodiversity outcomes Process can be as important as outcomes Poor Communication (between and amongst partners) Management has to be achieved in a cross cultural partnership Achieving social, economic and cultural outcomes are new fields in park management. Weak or absent monitoring and evaluation practices and what it costs Issues to consider in Co-Management of Protected Areas

4. Why Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation in Co-Management? M&E should balance the assessment of biophysical outcomes with partnership arrangements and processes linked to cultural interests and rights of partners (Ross et al 2004, Plummer & Armitage 2007) Bauman and Smyth 2007 ) M&E should be ‘participatory’ so it contributes positively to management, trust building, knowledge sharing through learning by doing ( Izurieta et. al 2011) PME has a role in empowerment – addresses power imbalances (Armitage 2003, Olsson et al 2004, Berkes 2009, Cundill & Fabricus 2010, Mahanty et al 2007)

5. Project objectives: Identify whether Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) enhances the benefits of Joint Management Determine how PME can be implemented cost effectively in a partnership with significant differences in perspectives and power How to scale up PME of Joint Management to all (27) Parks and Reserves in the NT ‘Does monitoring and evaluation improve joint management? The case of national parks in the NT’.

6. Partners and pilot study areas Central Land Council

7. Participatory PWS and Traditional Owners with NLC/CLC Participatory monitoring and evaluation phases adapted from Hockings et.al 2006)

8. Results 1: Themes & indicators identified Joint Management ThemeIndicators Governance (planning and making decisions together) Decision-making and process satisfaction Representation and participation satisfaction Relationships and communications among partners External partnerships Governance training

9. Joint Management themeIndicators Managing Country (Natural and Cultural Heritage ) Cultural site protection Natural resource and biodiversity management Traditional knowledge transfer Combined use of Traditional and western knowledge Resource use and availability Infrastructure availability Park management training Results 1: Themes & indicators identified

10. Joint Management ThemeIndicator Benefits to traditional owners (jobs, training, business opportunities, money story) Employment levels Associated enterprises Business training

11. Results 1: Themes & indicators identified Joint Management ThemeIndicator Managing Visitors (Looking after visitors) Information availability Visitor satisfaction

12. Number of joint management indicators classified as capital assets and as management cycle elements

13. Results 2: PME Evaluation Method

14. VERY GOOD GOOD NOT SO GOOD BAD

15. Results 3: Cost of M&E Costs of PME of 40% of all jointly managed parks were less than 1,5% when compared to the over all costs of Joint Management Expense 2008- 2009 2009- 2010 2010- 2011Total Government planning1,3124041,3763,092 Joint management coordination 1,4838354572,775 Indigenous employment 1,8791,1826133,674 Land Council engagement 2025004061,108 Monitoring and Evaluation 355152138 Total4,9112,9722,90410,787 Lease payments38481,3511,437

16. Results 3: Cost of PM&E Savings can be made through integrating PM&E of joint management with other joint management activities The preparation and validation phases of a PM&E process are the most expensive Cost in AU$’000s PM&E and joint management planning conducted separately PM&E and joint management planning conducted together Preparation of M&E and first joint management meeting 7569 Data Collection19 Analysis and Interpretation23 Validation/feed-back, and second joint management meeting 4127 TOTAL158138

17. Benefits of PME Process has provided opportunity for partners to Have a voice in what is monitored (e.g. indicators) and how (rather than being subjects of the evaluation) & how the parks are managed. Promoted closer working relationship in all parks (although some conflict remains) Greater objectivity, ownership and confidence in joint management

18. Challenges Narrow perspective on what is ‘joint management’ (Parks vs Aboriginal values). Still barriers to participation of partners (Aboriginal people) Still a strong focus on achieving biodiversity rather than social/cultural outcomes Limited human and financial capacity to engage in joint management by all partners PME is a new process and requires further institutionalisation in day to day operation

19. Summary PME Framework we trialled in terrestrial parks could very well be applied to MPAs PME was not as expensive as envisaged Assessment scale using colours (‘traffic lights’) has proven to be appropriate in across cultural situation PME gave prominence to social, cultural and economic outcomes in contrast to biophysical indicators/outcomes Integration of PME from the start into joint management generate cost savings and more opportunities to build knowledge on monitoring and evaluation, processes, inputs, outputs and outcomes

20. Thank you Arrernte, Wardaman, Wulna, and Anangu Traditional Owners from the four pilot parks NT Parks and Wildlife Service Northern Land Council Central Land Council Australia Research Council RIEL/Charles Darwin University Photos: A. Izurieta & NT-PWS Acknowledgements www.riel.cdu.edu.au arturo.izurieta@cdu.edu.au