WWF METT Handbook 2016 FINAL PDF

Contents METT use | Best practices | METT Q&A | Standards | Conclusions | Addendum | References
MANUAL
2016
METT HANDBOOK
A guide to using the Management
Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT)
A guide to using the METT ︱ page 1
WWF is the world’s leading independent conservation organisation.

WWF-UK is part of the global WWF network, which has over five
million supporters worldwide. Together we work in more than
100 countries. We’re working with governments, businesses and
the public to create solutions to the most critical environmental
challenges and to find ways to ensure people can live in harmony
with nature
The designation of geographical entities in this handbook and the

presentation of material do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of WWF concerning the legal status of any
country, territory, or area, or its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The opinions expressed
in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of WWF.
Handbook prepared by Equilibrium Research for WWF-UK.
Published in August 2016 by WWF-UK. Any reproduction in full or

in part of this publication must mention the title and credit WWF-
UK as the copyright owner. No photographs in this publication
may be reproduced without prior authorisation.
Suggested citation
Stolton, S. and N. Dudley. 2016. METT Handbook: A guide to using
the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), WWF-UK,
Woking
© Text 2016 WWF-UK. All rights reserved.
Front cover picture © Marc Hockings
ISBN: 978-1-5272-0060-9

CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Foreword
Preface
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 EXPERIENCES FROM 15 YEARS OF METT USE
2.1. Overview of METT use
2.2. Studies using the METT to understand management effectiveness
2.3. Using the METT to increase effective management
2.4. Global database of METT results
Case study 1: R-METTT: Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
3. BEST PRACTICE WHEN IMPLEMENTING THE METT

3.1. Types of implementation
3.2. Lessons learned and best practices
Case study 2: Bhutan METT+
4. METT QUESTION-BY-QUESTION GUIDANCE

4.1. METT guidance
4.2. Explanatory Notes: Data Sheet
4.3. Explanatory Notes: Assessment Form
4.4. Filling the gaps: guidance on additional METT questions
Case study 3: Papua New Guinea: Protected Areas Assessment Project
5. METT: PREPARING THE GROUNDWORK FOR PROTECTED AREA STANDARDS

5.1. The move towards development of standards
5.2. Conservation Assured
5.3. Green List of Conserved and Protected Areas
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1. Core findings and conclusions
6.2. Moving forward
7. ADDENDUM: METT ORIGINS, DIFFERENT VERSIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

7.1. A short history of the METT
7.2. Examples of studies of METT results
7.3. METT adaptations
7.4. Countries which have implemented the METT
REFERENCES AND NOTES

Acknowledgements
This handbook draws on the work of WWF and the World Bank regarding the original
development of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT); on the work of
many colleagues in WWF, The World Bank, GEF and other institutions on applying the
METT over 20 years, on a wide range of literature and on discussions with a range of
friends and experts in identifying lessons learned and next steps.
Specifically we would like to thank: Glyn Davies (WWF UK) for funding this work and
for his insights into the first draft. For their detailed comments on various drafts thanks
to Neil Burgess (UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre); Marc Hockings (The
University of Queensland, Vice-Chair (Science) IUCN World Commission on Protected
Areas and Senior Fellow, UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre); Matthew
Linkie (Wildlife Conservation Society) and Llewellyn Young (Ramsar Convention
Secretariat – Oceania). Thanks also to K Knights for comments on the draft and data
analysis from the METT database, Naomi Kingston (UNEP-WCMC) and to Lauren Coad
(OUCE, University of Oxford) for additional comments in relation to the data used here;
Fiona Leverington ((The University of Queensland) for the contribution and lessons
learned from PNG; Dechen Lham (Wildlife Conservation Division, Department of
Forests and Park Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Royal Government of
Bhutan) for development and comments on the Bhutan case study; Khalid Pasha (WWF)
for comments on the section on CA|TS and Tony Whitten (Flora and Fauna
International) for comments and suggestions.
We would also like to acknowledge the developers of the GD-PAME and METT databases
and the data they contain, which was gathered together with protected area managers
globally. The data was collated under the auspices of the IUCN WCPA Management
Effectiveness Task Force, working together with Universities of Queensland, Oxford
and Copenhagen, UNEP-WCMC and with financial assistance from various donors,
including WWF and the GEF.

FOREWORD It is a pleasure for WWF-UK to

support the development of this
Handbook, which builds on the
widespread use of the Management Effectiveness
Tracking Tool (METT) for protected areas in many
countries and different contexts.
The METT was developed as part of the WWF-World Bank Forest Alliance programme
© WWF
and the first version was field tested in 2001. Since then it has been adopted and adapted
by the Global Environment Facility and many other countries, organisations and
projects, as outlined in this publication.
As the authors note in this Handbook, the uses to which the METT has been put go far
beyond the original intention, which was to have a systematic way of gathering
information on whether protected areas (largely terrestrial ones) were being managed
effectively. This would allow people to challenge themselves on making improvements
over time, and allow some comparison between sites. What it could not do, without
considerable additional information, was convincingly show whether effective
management was leading to improved ecological and social outcomes. Furthermore, the
quality of each METT depends on the knowledge and diligence of the assessors, and the
integration of information from a diverse range of stakeholders.
The purpose of this METT Handbook, therefore, is to provide definitive up-to-date

guidance on METT implementation. In so doing, it outlines improvements that have
been pointed out over the years, and sets a framework within which to understand how
to get the best from this tracking tool – without having unrealistic expectations.
This latest review has come about through Sue Stolton and Nigel Dudley’s diligent
pursuit of ever improving a popular tool to help protected area managers assess their
progress and make their management more effective. It emerged through the IUCN-UK
Committee, as an extension of a project looking at protected areas in the UK, and as
such is a collaborative effort between WWF, IUCN WCPA and UNEP-WCMC. I hope it
continues to provide even more support to protected area managers in the years ahead.
Glyn Davies
Living Planet Centre, August 2016
“Protected Areas are a central part of

any national biodiversity strategy, and
WWF is pleased to support this important
Handbook, to help managers of protected
areas increase their effectiveness.”

PREFACE
It is now fifteen years since the
first edition of the Management
Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT)
was published, after lengthy and sometimes passionate
discussions about its form and function.
Although originally designed to measure a single time-limited conservation target,
the METT has somewhat to our surprise become the most widely used tool to measure
protected area management effectiveness, already applied many thousand times around
the world. Surprise and consternation: although we are delighted to see so much interest
in addressing management effectiveness of protected areas, we are also aware that the
METT is sometimes being used in ways that we never envisaged.
The METT was originally designed to measure progress in management effectiveness

at particular sites over time. It has a number of clear advantages. It is a simple, cheap
and flexible tool that can give a quick overview of the effectiveness of protected area
management without requiring expensive consultants or taking up too much time for
managers, rangers or others responsible for governance. On the other hand there are
clear limitations. The METT is usually run as a qualitative assessment and relies to
a large extent on the judgement and honesty of the assessors. It is therefore better at
addressing changes over time at a single site than detailed comparison of individual
indicators between different sites (although it is often used for the latter). It is much
better at providing information about how well management is being carried out
(the processes and outputs of management) than in discovering whether that
management is ultimately successful (the outcomes in terms of successful nature
conservation and other values).
Usefulness is also closely connected to how well the assessment is carried out. A
manager can sit in their office and fill out the form in a few minutes, but the results will
likely be inaccurate, be lacking justification and will certainly have little buy-in from
other stakeholders. Our experience suggests that a good METT process takes up to two
or three days and is way better if the assessment is evidence-based and a diverse group
of stakeholders have a chance to input into the results.
The first version of

the METT published
by World Bank/WWF
Alliance for Forest
Conservation and
Sustainable Use.

This review was stimulated by two realisations by the original authors of the METT.
First, that quantity was not necessarily being matched by quality in the METT with
assessors going through the motions rather than doing a professional job (e.g. when
only one person completes the METT with no other protected area staff, stakeholders
etc involved). Usefulness is dramatically reduced as a result. Secondly, even when
assessors are committed to best practice, if they take the METT seriously they are
likely to have a string of questions, and no additional advice was available to them. In
spring of 2016 two of us worked with managers from all the national parks in Bhutan,
rigorously critiquing the METT from the perspective of its application in that unique
and fascinating country: much of that experience is reflected here as well.
The need for greater guidance has been emphasised by other researchers as well.
Carbutt and Goodman note (2013): “We have noticed that a clear, emphatic and
absolute statement on how to best apply the various assessment tools is lacking, because
most publications address best practice methodology only in terms of ‘guidelines’ or
‘recommendations’” Coad et al., also note (2015): “To improve the credibility of protected
area management effectiveness scores, we suggest that standardized, robust operating
guidelines need to be developed and applied…”
The following review is an attempt to provide such advice, using lessons learned to date
drawn from both our own direct experience and from what others have found. This is
certainly not the final word on the subject: one thing we have learned is that a couple of
dozen simple questions are not actually that simple at all. If you use the METT and have
comments, or have made modifications, or find things that do not seem to make sense,
please let us know!
Sue Stolton, Nigel Dudley and Marc Hockings

[email protected]

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
© JAMES FRANKHAM / WWF

Contents
The first version of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT)

was published by the World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation
and Sustainable Use (“the Alliance”) in 2002, after a year of development.
The tool was devised for a very specific purpose; to evaluate progress
towards the Alliance’s target of securing 50 million hectares of existing but
highly threatened forest protected areas under effective management by
the year 2005. That the METT would become the world’s most frequently
used protected area management effectiveness evaluation tool was not
envisaged when it was developed. It is because of the tool’s continued
utility and popularity that WWF commissioned this handbook to review
how the METT has been used, provide guidance on how to use the METT
appropriately and to chart the METT’s history and use.
Photo: The METT has been used all over the world in the last 15 years in both terrestrial
and marine protected areas. Monte Leon National Park, Patagonia, Argentina
1.1 Executive summary

Following growing interest in protected area management effectiveness (PAME), in 1999
the World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use set a target
of: 50 million hectares of existing but highly threatened forest protected areas to be
secured under effective management by the year 2005. Various methods were used to
measure the target, culminating in development of the Management Effectiveness
Tracking Tool (METT), a simple, questionnaire type approach. The METT has since
become the commonest PAME tool, used in over 2,500 protected areas covering over 4.2
million km2 (i.e. over a fifth of the world’s terrestrial protected areas by area) in at least
127 countries.
The METT consists of two main sections: datasheets of key information on the
protected area and an assessment form containing a questionnaire with four
alternative responses to 30 questions, each with an associated score, a data field for
notes and a justification for the answers, and a place to list steps to improve
management if necessary. Various versions of the METT exist, along with many local
modifications. The latest global METT is available here1.
The METT is strongest at measuring the effectiveness of management and weaker at

reflecting overall conservation results. It was designed primarily to track progress over
time at a single site and to identify actions to address any management weaknesses;
rather than to compare management between different sites. However, the development
of a large global database of METT results has encouraged several comparative analyses,
to identify those management processes critical to success.
Experience has shown that many users do not apply the METT as effectively as possible,
in particular focusing on the score rather than the list of necessary next steps (a
checklist of how management needs to change). In addition, there is confusion about
interpretation of some of the questions. This handbook aim to improve the efficacy with
which the METT is applied. It includes detailed additional guidance on the application of
the METT and best practices for developing, implementing and using the results of the
METT. Best practices are summarised below.
Carefully plan the METT implementation

1. Plan the implementation process. Review the METT before undertaking the
assessment and assess the information available to complete it. Then think
about capacity and pre-assessment training needs, adaptation, timing, scope
and scale, verification, etc.
2. Allow enough time to complete the assessment in full. A good METT cannot
be done in a quick hour; most questions take serious thought. The first METT
is likely to take at least a day, probably two. Subsequent repeat METTS may be
a little quicker.
Do it properly and do it all

3. Complete all the METT including all questions on the datasheets and
narrative sections related to the multiple choice questions. The next steps
section is essential as the steps identified create a quick check list of needed
actions.
4. Use quantitative data wherever available to support assessment, this is most

important of all in the outcomes questions.

Adapt and translate

5. The METT is a generic tool designed for global use; thus it is unlikely to
fit one protected area (or system, type etc) of area perfectly. Adaptation is
encouraged; ideally by keeping the basic format of the METT the same and
adding to, rather than changing, the wording of the METT (e.g. providing
additional advice on interpretation for local conditions or by additional
questions).
Repeat the assessment

6. The METT is designed to track progress over time. Sites/networks planning
to implement the METT should thus aim to repeat the assessments every few
years; ideally the METT should be an automatic part of annual planning.
Consultate and get consensus

7. The implementation of the METT should wherever possible include a wide
range of rightsholders and stakeholders to aid insight in the assessment
results; including people outside the protected area, such as local
communities, will bring richer insights.
Build capacity and guidance

8. Although designed as a simple tool, implementing the METT may be the first
time protected area staff and other rightsholders and stakeholders have been
involved in assessing protected area management effectiveness (PAME). Thus
some capacity building is advisable so that all participants understand PAME.
9. As a generic tool the METT questions can be interpreted differently in

different situations/jurisdictions. Thus developing a better understanding of
the METT and how it can be implemented in a specific jurisdiction will help
ensure valid results.
Verify results
10. Although designed as a self-assessment tool, METT implementation can
involve verification processes; from simple checking of completed METTs by
external assessors to more detailed field verification exercises involving data
collection.
Implement recomendations
11. Completing the METT is only the first step of the assessment; the
implementation process should include adaptive management (e.g. a plan of
action to implement results) and communications process to share results
locally and globally.
The first METT is likely to take at least a day, probably two.

Subsequent repeat METTS may be a little quicker.

In addition to the best practices outlined above, the following general recommendations
are made:
1. Extra questions: there are strong arguments for additional questions on climate
change, transboundary conservation, social processes and a division of the outcome
questions to separate conservation outcomes and cultural/social outcomes.
2. Clearer wording: although constant revisions are simply confusing, there are
several places where repeated applications have identified some ambiguities
remaining in the 2007 version.
3. Capacity building material: practical experience with the METT has shown
that additional tools can be helpful, such as PowerPoint presentations that can
be projected and filled in through discussion and consensus where multiple
stakeholders are involved in completing the METT.
4. A dedicated web site: there is a need for a METT website, to include the definitive
version of the assessment tool, translations, associated capacity building and
presentation material and also perhaps a chat room for people to swap experiences.
5. Outcome assessment: several users have used the METT with systems for
assessing outcomes, to provide a more complete assessment, or have provided advice
on how to modify the METT.
6. Translation: the METT is already available in multiple languages (e.g., French,

Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Romanian and Bahasa Indonesia) but not all of these
are the most up to date version; once a revised version is complete, re-translations
or updated translations into major languages will be needed, particularly French,
Spanish, Chinese and Arabic.
7. Data control: a measure of quality control is needed when METTs are completed,
particularly when implemented as part of an NGO, donor or government led project.
Finally, whilst PAME gives general management advice, it does not contain standards.
Furthermore, PAME assesses management against a site’s own goals and objectives and
often involve self-assessments; while standards evaluate a site’s management against
peer reviewed best practices. Two initiatives (Conservation Assured from WWF and
the Green List from IUCN) have developed management standards for protected areas
and are introduced in the Handbook. Both start from a PAME assessment; then apply
standards and an external expert assessment process as to whether those standards
have been reached.

2. EXPERIENCES FROM 15
© JÜRGEN FREUND / WWF

YEARS OF METT USE

During years of widespread use, the METT has been adapted, praised
and criticised widely. It has been used by many governments, nearly all
the big international NGOs working on conservation issues, as well as by
conservation conventions, major funders (most significantly the GEF),
academics and researchers. Data on METT use have been collected and
academics have published papers on the results. Most of these applications
and analyses go way beyond the initial purposes and aims of the METT.
They have shown the utility of the tool and but have also demonstrated
weakness and gaps in the design and particularly in the process by which
the tool is used.
Photo: Management, monitoring and assessment are vital activities for any protected
area. Green turtle tagging and monitoring, Philippines.

2.1. Overview of METT use

Since the initial trial of the “proto-METT” in 16 protected areas in 2001 (see section 7.1)
to date the METT has been used in over 2,500 protected areas covering over 4.2 million
km2 in 127 countries around the world according to data held in the METT database (see
Sections 2.4 and 7.4).So in terms of area the METT has been used in over a fifth of the
world’s terrestrial protected areas. This widespread use of the METT, making it the most
used PAME tool globally, is related to several factors including:
1. It is simple and cheap to use (objectives which influenced its initial design and
development) and there are few alterative tools with similar objectives.
2. The conservation outreach of the institutional developers of the METT (WWF and
the World Bank) and the many organisations which have since used /promoted the
METT.
3. Use by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for monitoring projects in protected
areas (see box 1).
At its most basic, implementation can take little more than a few hours by someone
(e.g. a manager or project officer) with intimate knowledge of the protected area being
assessed and no equipment is required beyond a computer – or even just a pencil and
paper if a hard copy is used.
The fact that the METT was the initiative of a major conservation organisation (WWF)
and a major conservation funder (the World Bank) has undoubtedly been a factor in its
widespread uptake. The World Bank has been using various versions of the METT in
monitoring its projects since 2001. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) made the
METT mandatory for use in all projects in protected areas funded from GEF-3 (2002-
2006) grants onwards. In 2003, WWF started a serious attempt to use the METT in
connection with all its projects involving forest protected areas.
Results from the first assessment (Dudley et al., 2004) were presented to the Seventh
Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-7) to the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) in 2004, and helped to persuade CBD signatories to include the need for
assessment of management effectiveness in the CBD’s Programme of Work on Protected
Areas (see box 1).
Many other institutions have also adopted and/or adapted the METT. Country
adaptations have been made for over 20 organisations and governments (see section
7) including Bhutan, Indonesia, Jamaica, Zambia, Namibia, India, Papua New Guinea,
South Africa etc. Other conservation NGOs such as Conservation International
(Pauquet, 2005), Wilderness Foundation Africa2 , Global Wildlife Conservation3 , The
Nature Conservancy4 , Wildlife Conservation Society (see for example Heffernan et al.,
2004), IUCN5 , Zoological Society of London (for example three METTs applied in the
Tsavo ecosystem in 2015), USAID (LESTARI project)6 , Western Hemisphere Shorebird
Reserve Network7 (which uses a modified form of the METT) and Space for Elephants
Foundation (SEF, 2012) has also used and adapted the METT as have other funding
bodies such as the Critical Ecosystem Partnership fund (CEPF, 2012 and Burgess et al.,
2015) and conventions including the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, 2015).
The World Bank developed an equivalent system for marine protected areas based on
the METT (Staub and Hatziolos, 2004). The basic structure of the METT has also been
used in the development of tools such as the UNDP’s Capacity Development Scorecard8
and Financial Sustainability Scorecard9.

Box 1: The key players in developing the METT

Take-up of the METT has been driven by several key institutions:
IUCN WCPA: The METT was originally developed from work carried out by the IUCN
WCPA task force on management effectiveness (see section 7.1). The task force went on
to help develop and promote widely PAME assessments in general and the METT in
particular during the early years of its development. Those involved have continued to
implement the METT across the globe.
CBD: The Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) asked Parties to . . .

“expand and institutionalize management effectiveness assessments to work towards
assessing 60 per cent of the total area of protected areas by 2015 using various national
and regional tools, and report the results into the global database on management
effectiveness. . .’ (CBD, 2004; also see Hockings et al., 2015 for an overview of PoWPA
targets). By 2014, Coad et al. found over 17 per cent of countries had already met
this target. The METT was one of the most used tools and the frequency of PAME
assessment was highest in the tropical forests, where 45 per cent of protected areas
have been assessed, which possibly reflects wide use of the METT in these areas due to
its initial purpose and targets to assess PAME in forested protected areas.
GEF: The METT is the first area-based tracking tool to become a requirement for
GEF-financed operations. METTs for all protected areas supported by a project are
submitted at three stages (i.e. three times) of implementation: (i) at CEO Endorsement
for full-sized (FSP), or CEO approval for medium-sized projects (MSP), (ii) at project
midterm and (iii) at project completion (Swartzendruber, 2013). At both the project
and portfolio level, the GEF is using the METT as a proxy for biodiversity status
and condition and as a measure of one key contributing factor towards ensuring the
sustainability of a protected area system, i.e., effectively managed individual protected
areas must be considered a cornerstone of a sustainable system, notwithstanding key
aspects of sustainability such as financing, institutional sustainability and capacity,
and ecosystem and species representation that may not be directly assessed at the
system level (Zimsky et al., 2010). The GEF thus makes the assumption that project
interventions leading to improvements in protected area management will have a
positive impact on biodiversity (Coad et al, 2014). The GEF supports this assumption
with evidence from studies, such as one carried out in Zambia, which used the
adapted METTPAZ, which found that increases in METT scores were correlated
with improvements in biodiversity outcomes (Zimsky et al., 2010). The GEF has data
from some 2,440 METTs from 1,924 PAs in 104 countries (GEF, 2015). The main
adaptations of the latest version (Tracking Tool for GEF-6 Biodiversity Projects10 )
include changes to the datasheets in relation to biodiversity objectives and the threat
assessment; and question 30 has been adapted specifically to assess the status of
the biodiversity outcomes stated in the tools datasheets. Of note is that the tool only
includes comments and next steps narrative fields and does not ask for justification of
the assessment response.
World Bank: the Bank used the METT for reporting on all its protected area projects
and was a major mover in the wider uptake of protected area assessment by the GEF
and CBD.
WWF: WWF used the METT in over 200 forest protected areas in 37 countries during
2003-4 (Dudley et al., 2004), and again in over 100 protected areas in 2005-6 (Dudley
et al., 2007). The results of the METT helped WWF to identify minimum management
standards for application in its protected area projects and also helped to shape the
work programme and targets for WWF’s global programme (Dudley et al., 2007). More
recently, the METT has been used extensively by WWF and partners as the first stage
in the Conservation Assured | Tiger Standards (CA|TS) development (see section 5.2).

2.2. Studies using the METT to understand

management effectiveness
The METT is designed primarily to track progress in PAME over time and to identify
actions to rectify any weaknesses in management; it was not designed as a way of
comparing management between different sites. Nonetheless, the existence of a growing
database of METT results (see section 2.4) has encouraged researchers to use the
METT as a way of identifying more general information on protected area strengths,
weaknesses, regional variations and progress over time. Whilst noting the limitations of
using METT data in this way (section 7) these studies nonetheless provide some useful
pointers for management and show an additional use of the METT.
Soon after the METT was first developed, during 2003-2004, WWF carried out two
analyses of METT data, drawing on successive applications in forest protected areas
(Dudley et al, 2004; Dudley et al, 2004a). Analysis of around 200 forest protected
areas suggested that management effectiveness tended to increase with length of
establishment and pinpointed important regional differences, with management at
that stage being particularly weak in Latin America. Key threats were from poaching
and illegal timber extraction, encroachment and over-collection of non-timber forest
products. Strengths and weaknesses of management were highlighted, along with those
aspects of management which correlated with success, as outlined in table 1 below.
Table 1: Results from early analyses of METT application in forest protected areas
Management strengths Management weaknesses Correlations with management success
Achieving legal status Social relations Enforcement capacity
Design Budget management Staff numbers and funding
Boundary demarcation Monitoring and evaluation Education and awareness-raising
Resource inventory Law enforcement Monitoring and evaluation
Objective setting IUCN category – stricter categories better
Enforcement capacity emerged as the strongest indicator of success (which may reflect
the sites that WWF was working in at the time), but also an area where many protected
areas were failing. Monitoring and evaluation was similarly important but often under-
developed. Although the management objectives (i.e. IUCN protected area management
category) correlated strongly with success, with stricter categories generally being
considered more effective at meeting management goals, this was based on a small
sample of the less strict categories (V and VI). Presence of other designations (World
Heritage, UNESCO Man and the Biosphere or Ramsar) conversely had no statistical
links with performance.
In 2007, another METT analysis was carried out by WWF, drawing on results from
over 330 protected areas in 51 countries, and from assessments carried out in 2004
and 2006 (Dudley et al, 2007). Results closely matched the earlier two studies. As
before, the strongest association between effectiveness and management related to
law enforcement, control of access, resource management, monitoring and evaluation,
maintenance of equipment, budget management and existence of annual work plans;
all elements of a well-regulated and managed reserve. A stricter IUCN category was
again associated with a more effective result while international designations such as
recognition as a natural World Heritage site conversely had little apparent influence on
success. Consumptive biotic use, predominantly poaching, was identified as the most
significant pressure. And once more, results seemed to indicate an increasing trend
towards effectiveness over time.

© WWF-GREATER MEKONG / BARAMEE TEMBOONKIAT

Analysis of METT Following this, there was a gap before the METT was assessed again at a global
results shows that level. In between there were a number of important overall assessments of PAME
well trained staff data, with a substantial proportion coming from METT. Most significantly, a global
are vital for effective
study by Leverington et al. (2010), with over 20 per cent of the results coming from
management.
SMART Patrol Rangers METT assessments, found that the strongest management factors related to legal
Training, Mae Wong establishment, design, legislation and boundary marking and to effectiveness of
and Klong Lan National governance; while the weakest aspects of management included community benefit
Park, Thailand. programmes, resourcing (funding reliability and adequacy, staff numbers and facility
and equipment maintenance) and management effectiveness evaluation. Factors
most closely correlated with positive outcomes for conservation included staff skills,
constraint or support by the external civil and political environment, achievements
of outputs and adequacy of law enforcement. This assessment, which covered all
protected area biomes, identified greater importance for overall policy context and
governance quality but otherwise closely mirrored the earlier and much smaller
forest METT samples.
A later global study focused on the number and distribution of applications of PAME,
and the utility of PAME in relation to the achievement of Aichi Biodiversity Targets
(CBD, 2010), with less emphasis on the results (Coad et al., 2013). More recently,
a major analysis of METT data was undertaken, principally looking at changes in
management effectiveness over time (Geldmann et al, 2015). By the time of this
assessment, some 1,934 METT results were available, including 722 with repeat
data from the same protected area. Analysis confirmed the earlier suggestion that
protected area management effectiveness tends to improve over time, with 69.5 per
cent of those analysed showing an increased overall score over time. Larger and
more threatened protected areas tended to show the greatest improvement, and
those with initially low scores also tended to improve. The authors conclude that the
commonsense assumption that additional effort and resources can lead to improved
management effectiveness is frequently correct.
The GEF also carried out an assessment of METT use in 2015 (GEF, 2015). A total of
2,440 METTs were reviewed from 1,924 protected areas in 104 countries; of these
a subset of 275 protected areas in 75 countries with at least two METT assessments
were used to assess changes in PAME over time. The reliability of the METT as a
monitoring tool was also considered and field assessments were undertaken in seven

countries across three regions. The assessment of results (using only those METTs more
than 50 per cent complete) found the highest individual mean scores were legal status,
protected area boundaries, and protected area design. The lowest mean scores were
linked to the contributions of commercial tourism to protected area management and
involvement of local communities and indigenous people in protected area decision-
making. When looking at changes over time, the greatest improvements were observed
in the adequacy of management plans, law enforcement, protected area regulations,
resource inventory and protected area objectives; all which reflect the substantial inputs
of GEF into protected area management.
Finally, in 2015 WWF updated and reviewed the METT assessment results of PAME
in their priority places (a series of areas identified by WWF as having exceptional
ecosystems and habitats). Average PAME scores (where 3 is the highest level of
effectiveness) in WWF priority places ranged from 1.29 to 2.28 with only four places out
of 27 having scores over 2, suggesting most protected areas in their portfolio still needed
to improve management (Stephenson et al., 2015).
In addition to these studies many studies of national or jurisdictional groups of METT

results have been carried out (see section 7).
Global METT data are not evenly distributed (see section 7.4). The METT was initially
designed, and has been primarily used, to measure conservation funding impact, so that
it has probably been biased towards underperforming protected areas, identified as requiring
additional support (Nolte and Agrawal, 2012; Coad et al., 2014; Stephenson et al., 2015).
As such, claims about the relative effectiveness of protected areas using METT results
must include information on and analysis of factors such as the sample size and location
of the areas being assessed to ensure the context of the results are correctly understood.
2.3. Using the METT to increase effective

management
In addition to reviews of the results of the METT the two most fundamental questions
related to 15 years use of the tool are:
1. Does using the METT help increase the management effectiveness of protected areas?
2. Do the METT results correlate with other indicators of protected area effectiveness
in terms of outcomes?
In relation to the first question, a clear strength of the METT is that it allows for
progress to be measured over time in relation to specific management issues (Higgins-
Zogib and MacKinnon, 2006). If the METT is to have a role in increasing PAME and
helping countries reach the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (see Stephenson et al., 2015),
specifically target 11 which call for “through effectively and equitably managed,
ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas” (CBD, 2010),
this implies that the METT findings are reflected in subsequent management decisions
(e.g. through adaptation, funding or action plans). This positive relationship is most
evident in regional/jurisdictional use of the METT, with examples provided in a range of
reports (see section 7.3).
The second question relates to the validity of the METT results and the relationship of
those results to conservation actions. As noted, the METT does not focus on outcome
assessments but rather whether the core components of effective management are in
place to achieve conservation. As Coad et al. (2015) note: “It is important to understand
the causes of success or failure of management: without such an analysis, attempts to
improve performance may be ineffective. The rationale for PAME, while focused on
facilitating effective management rather than building a scientific evidence base, is
therefore, in part, to understand the impacts of protected area management”. The METT

can thus be a useful contributor to a range of datasets, rather than providing the sole
dataset, to help practitioners assess conservation outcomes (see for example Forrest et
al., 2011 and Henschel et al., 2014).
The most detailed paper on impact evaluation in protected areas was published
by Coad et al. in 2015. This looked at the impact of protected area management on
biodiversity outcomes. It used the whole dataset of PAME results held in the Global
Database for Protected Area Management Effectiveness (see section 2.4), which at
the time held almost 18,000 PAME assessments and in addition assessed the peer-
reviewed literature on how PAME data had been used in impact evaluation. The authors
found that the paucity of data from appropriate counterfactuals (i.e. a “counter-to-fact
conditional” such as the status of an area if had not been declared a protected area, or
certain management activities had not happened) means that the PAME data are not
ideally suited to the needs of scientific impact assessment. However they concluded
that: “When suitably combined with independent measures of PA impact that have
employed appropriate counterfactual methodologies, PAME data can help increase our
understanding of the impact of aspects of PA management on conservation outcomes”
(Coad et al., 2015).
Overriding both the above questions is the need to be confident that the METT score
does indeed provide a useful reflection of management realities. In the research carried
out by Geldmann et al (2015), which focused on 722 sites that had completed at least two
METT assessments, the authors specifically addressed the criticism that METT scores
are not an accurate reflection of reality on the ground. They note that in general most
repeated METT assessments produce scores that suggest improvement in management
over time, as would be expected if increased METT scores were indicative of real
improvements, but some 30 per cent experienced no change, or even declines, in overall
scores. They conclude that this “is a considerable proportion had there been systematic
manipulation of scores”. The authors noted that although this: “does not represent
definitive causal evidence that scores are not manipulated, it does suggest that at least
some of the observed changes can be attributable to actual changes in management
effectiveness on the ground”.
There is little evidence that protected area staff routinely inflate scores to make
themselves look better although trends can be observed. Carbutt and Goodman (2013)
assessed use of the METT in South Africa. They noted that field staff members tend to
be so closely involved with day-to-day activities that they lose objectivity, and tend to be
too negative and score low. Senior management come with a more strategic viewpoint
and, in the absence of the day-to-day realities, tend to score too high. Hence they stress
the need to encourage a range of viewpoints and opinions and to facilitate dialogue until
a consensus score is reached. Similarly Zimsky et al. (2010) found that when completed
using a rigorous process in Zambia, the METT was assessed as a suitable performance
metric for PAME, backing up the findings of WWF’s analysis of METT results in 2004
and 2006 (Dudley et al, 2007).
2.4. Global database of METT results

PAME assessments are recorded in the Global Database on Protected Area Management
Effectiveness (GD-PAME) developed by the University of Queensland and now managed
by UNEP WCMC (UNEP WCMC and IUCN WCPA, 2016). Countries are encouraged
to provide information to this database in the CBD’s decision COP X/31 (2010) which
“... invites Parties, taking into account the target for goal 1.4 of the programme of
work, which calls for all protected areas to have effective management in existence
by 2012 using participatory and science-based site planning processes with full and
effective participation of stakeholders, and noting that to assess the effectiveness of
the management, specific indicators may also be needed to: (a) Continue to expand and
institutionalize management effectiveness assessments to work towards assessing 60
per cent of the total area of protected areas by 2015 using various national and regional

tools and report the results into the global database on management effectiveness
maintained by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP WCMC)”11.
There is also a specific METT database which contains most of the known METT
assessments conducted by the major users (GEF, WWF, CEPF) and assorted other
contributors, which is currently managed in a temporary capacity by a core group of
researchers connected to UNEP-WCMC, the University of Oxford, the University of
Copenhagen and the consultancy Protected Area Solutions. The data and structure of
the database are in the process of being error checked, made user-friendly and more
intuitive. Many organisations have provided METT data and funds for data entry over a
period of years, mainly in the form of short-term projects. At present, there is no long-
term funding in place to maintain the database, although UNEP-WCMC have committed
to host the METT and GD-PAME datasets and to link them to the World Database on
Protected Areas (WDPA) so that they have an institutional home, and will endeavour to
make the data available through the online portal protectedplanet.net, providing that
the data providers have given consent.
The centralised database is the most efficient way to maximise the utility of the compiled
METT data for the widest audience. The crucial next step to ensure that data from
METT assessments are compiled, checked and available for management and research
purposes is to solidify the long-term plan with the consent of data providers and secure
long-term funding.
Contributors wishing to add their data to the database must be aware that the current
hosting and management context is not permanent and is highly likely to change in
the near future. Further to this, the paucity of continued funding for the upkeep and
development of the database has meant that the procedure for adding data is not fixed
and needs to be adapted for individual project circumstances. Initial contact for a data
entry and/or analysis project should be made to the Protected Areas Programme at
UNEP-WCMC
To enable a cost-effective, swift and efficient data entry process the following
suggestions should be taken on board once the project has been agreed:
1. Provide an “assessment list” including the protected area name, country, date of
assessment and WDPA ID. A checklist such as this is a basic safeguard for ensuring
that all the data has been provided, and that all data will be entered correctly.
2. Organise data into protected areas folders and country folders, count how many
assessments there are and identify what version of the METT has been used (e.g.
2002 version (METT 1) or 2007 version (METT 3), variations or modifications,
etc), and include this information in the “assessment list”. Also check carefully
for duplicate files and remove them. If the data entry team has to trawl through
hundreds of files just to work out what is there this will add days or weeks to the
project, increasing the cost immensely.
3. Be aware that translations will add time to the data entry process. Assessments
in English are straightforward, and it may be worth considering translating into
English before passing over the data, depending on the language. Non-Roman script
and non-Romanized languages are the most difficult to process as the requisite
skills are less likely to be present within the team (e.g. Russian, Vietnamese, Greek,
Chinese).
4. There is a standard process developed for adding results from the 2002 version
(METT 1) and 2007 version (METT 3), and the database has a limited capacity for
modified versions and variations. If the standard questions have been modified or
additional questions have been added, only the scores for questions that match the
standard METT 1 and METT 3 will be entered.

Case study 1
R-METT: Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
Llewellyn Young
© JORGE SIERRA / WWF

Corrubedo National The Convention on Wetlands, the Ramsar Convention, is an intergovernmental treaty
Park in Spain. that provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the
A Ramsar wetlands site conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. One of the key obligations
of Contracting Parties is to identify priority wetlands in their territory, to designate
them as Wetlands of International Importance (‘Ramsar Site’), and to ensure their
conservation and wise use. Worldwide, there are presently more than 2,240 such
Ramsar Sites. For wise use to be ensured, site managers must be able to anticipate new
issues and to respond to them rapidly and effectively. The need for regular and open
assessments of the effectiveness of management, allowing sites to learn from both
successes and failures, has thus been recognised as an important component of Ramsar
Site management.
After a period of discussion, review and field testing by the Ramsar Convention, the
Ramsar Site Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (R-METT) was adopted at the
12th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention in 2015 (Ramsar COP12
Resolution XII.15). The decision encourages Contracting Parties that do not already
have effective mechanisms in place to consider using the R-METT.
The R-METT is based on the 2007 version of the METT with some adaptations specific
to the needs of the Convention and wetlands. The adaptations are:
• Data Sheet 1b: Identifying and describing values from the Ecological
Character Description and the Ramsar Information Sheet. This provides
information on the ecological character of the site including the ecosystem services
that it provides, and the criteria under which the site qualifies as a Wetland of
International Importance.
• Additional multiple choice questions. Three additional questions have

been added on ecological character description, development of a cross sector
management committee and the effectiveness of communication mechanisms with
the Ramsar administration.
• Data Sheet 5: Trends in Ramsar Ecological Character (including

ecosystem services and community benefits). A new section which provides
information on trends over the past five years in the ecological character of the site
including the ecosystem services that it provides, and the criteria under which the
site qualifies as a Ramsar Site.

@ EQUILIBRIUM RESEARCH
3. BEST PRACTICE WHEN

IMPLEMENTING THE METT
Over the last 15 years the METT has been used in protected areas in
over 120 countries worldwide. Many of the results have been recorded
and analysed, and much of the data gathered has been used to review
results and draw out recommendations on the aims, content and process
of the METT. Furthermore other PAME assessments have taken place
worldwide, using a multitude of tools. As such PAME has proven to be a
valuable management tool where the process is robustly implemented and
information is interpreted within the context of local decision-making
(Coad et al., 2014). This third section of the handbook looks at a range
issues related to the process of carrying out the METT. It identifies a
number of best practices to ensure valid and useful results.
Photo: Implementing the Bhutan METT +

3.1. Types of implementation

The use of the METT can be divided into three main types:
i. Part of a jurisdictional (e.g. protected area system, category or biome type) approach
to PAME usually instituted by the protected area agency (e.g. Bhutan, Indonesia,
Jamaica, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia etc) or type of protected area (e.g. Ramsar,
marine protected areas)
ii. Part of an NGO-led project (e.g. WWF and a range of other NGOs, see section 7.1)
iii. For monitoring large-scale funding impacts (e.g. GEF, World Bank, CEPF).
Ideally, PAME should be seen as a normal part of the process of management,

with management actions being regularly reviewed and adapted to fit changing
circumstances, as outlined in the first type given above. The art of protected areas
management is still quite new and there is much to be learned; adaptive management is
thus particularly important. PAME can help provide managers with two vital pieces of
information to guide their adaptive management:
i. Highlighting management practices that are failing to achieve desired results and the
solutions to adequately address these.
ii. Providing renewed confidence in practices that are working effectively.
Put simply, adaptive management describes the process by which information

concerning past activities can be fed back into management to improve performance in
the future (see for example Biggs et al., 2011) – the METT has been specifically designed
for such a process.
The second and third types of use are often as a result of the METT being used as a
performance indicator by conservation organisations and donors. This may encourage
funding recipients to deliver overly positive self-assessments at the end of a project
(Coad et al., 2014). As Carbutt and Goodman, 2013 note: “Management effectiveness
assessments should not be seen merely as a ‘paper exercise’ to meet reporting
obligations. Rather, they should be undertaken objectively and with sober judgement
and diligence to ensure that the effectiveness score achieved represents a realistic
picture of management practices and processes, in the absence of hard quantitative
data”. Thus where assessments are conducted as part of donor funding requirements,
donors should insist on procedural standards being met and provide specific funding for
assessments within project budgets (Coad et al., 2014), making the use of the METT a
useful tool rather than just a reporting task (Zimsky et al., 2011).
3.2. Lessons learned and best practices

A rapid self-assessment tool is always likely to attract criticism that its implementation
could be biased, with results being primarily qualitative and of limited use in
understanding PAME (Cook and Hockings, 2011). One way to ensure better data
collection when using the METT is to conduct the assessment under strict and
consistent operating conditions, facilitated by capacity building of those undertaking the
assessment, to ensure that implementation is robust, objective and reputable (Carbutt
and Goodman, 2013, Coad et al., 2014). Many protected area managers and staff have
noted that the major benefits of PAME have come during the assessment process rather
than from any formal report produced as a result, so getting the process right is critical
to success (Hockings et al., 2015).
The WCPA has reviewed the different processes to undertake PAME, and assessed their
pros and cons (Hockings et al., 2006 and Hockings et al., 2015). Best practices specific
to the METT are outlined (in the boxes) and discussed below.

3.2.1. Carefully plan the METT implementation
Best practices:
1. Plan the implementation process. Review the METT before
undertaking the assessment and assess the information
available to complete it. Then think about capacity and pre-
assessment training needs, adaptation, timing, scope and scale,
verification, etc.
2. Allow enough time to complete the assessment in full. A good

METT cannot be done in a quick hour; most questions take
serious thought. The first METT is likely to take at least a day,
probably two. Subsequent repeat METTs may be a little quicker.
The METT is only useful if done properly, and the quality and objectivity of the
assessment process should be considered if the results are to be used in site, national or
international reporting (Knights et al., 2014). A little time spent collating evidence and
planning implementation can ensure the validity of results.
Before even starting to plan implementation, managers and others should review the
content of the METT, work out what evidence is available relevant to each indicator and
then assemble this evidence to have it available during the assessment discussions.
What follows here are a range of process orientated practices which should be
considered before completing the assessment. Although intended to be a rapid and cost-
effective tool the time allotted to undertake the assessment should allow for thorough
deliberation of the results (Coad et al., 2014).
3.2.2. Do it properly and do it all
Best practices:
3. Complete all the METT including all questions on the datasheets
and narrative sections related to the multiple choice questions. The
next steps section is essential as the steps identified create a quick
check list of needed actions.
4. Use quantitative data wherever available to support assessment,

this is most important of all in the outcomes questions.
The current version of the METT used by WWF (Stolton et al, 2007) is a relatively short
document with a minimum of essential guidance. Those in charge of implementation
should read and ensure this simple guidance is followed (as noted above pre-assessment
training may be needed to explain how to implement the METT) and, where a project
manager exists, a few simple checks can be made to assess quality of completed results
including:
• Number of people involved (data sheet 1), where possible assessments should be
carried out with a range of stakeholders and rightsholders, including protected area
managers, local government, partner NGOs, local community representatives etc
• Quality of completion of the two narrative boxes accompanying each question in the
multiple choice questionnaire
• Evidence of use of the results to develop a plan of action to address areas of weakness
in management

© JASON RUBENS / WWF

It is very important There is a misconception (e.g. Mascia et al, 2014) that only the multiple choice questions
that monitoring are part of the formal METT assessment process. This is erroneous and all parts of the
activities and
METT are an important contribution to the assessment of PAME, especially in providing
results are noted
in the comments/ metadata. However a trend towards incomplete METTs does appear to be developing;
justification column Burgess et al. (2014) note that an analysis of 3,600 METT data sheets found that the
of the METT to “additional” questions (those marked a, b, c in the multiple choice section of the METT)
explain how METT are generally not answered, a review by the GEF of the use of 2,440 METT also noted
questions are
that many METTs were incomplete (GEF, 2015). It should also be stressed that whilst the
scored. Mangrove
monitoring, Mafia whole METT is important the guidance notes state that: “Questions that are not relevant
Island, Tanzania. to a particular protected area should be omitted” (Stolton et al., 2007). Such an approach
is clearly common sense for a tool which has been developed for global use in the very
diverse world of protected areas. However this simple guidance is clearly not always
being followed with the 2015 analysis of the GEF’s implementation of the METT noting:
“on the measure related to indigenous people, the structure of the METT does not allow
evaluators to distinguish between PAs where no indigenous people were present, and
PAs where indigenous people issues were relevant but not addressed. In both instances,
this measure would receive a score of ‘0’.” (GEF, 2015).
In particular the space provided for the narrative (comments/justification and next
steps) is a vital component of the METT; although it is one that is often missed. Because
of the dominance of input and process questions in the METT, if the outcome question
and additional points are completed without sufficient detail to back-up the claims
made, then the ability for the METT to serve as a tool to assess biodiversity outcomes is
even more seriously limited. Zimsky et al. (2010) note that: “the METT fails to require
those who fill out the form to justify outcome scores with concrete data of biodiversity
status, threat reduction”; however the failure here is perhaps more to do with the
lack of oversight in completing the METT and lack of guidance (e.g. training of those
undertaking or overseeing the assessment) to complete the METT properly.

PAME tools are increasingly being implemented using web-based questionnaires (e.g.
UNESCO’s periodic reporting format for World Heritage sites); if such as tool is developed
for METT implementation one simple way to help ensure all elements are completed is
not to let users continue or submit an assessment unless all fields have been completed.
PAME systems, such as the METT, which focus on collecting qualitative rather than
quantitative data can be subject to criticism. However, the reality is that in many cases,
expert-based knowledge is the only source for making such assessments. A study in
Australia, which has one of the world’s better developed and researched protected
area networks, found that in 25 per cent of management effectiveness assessments,
practitioners had insufficient evidence to assess their management performance and
even where sufficient information was available 60 per cent of assessments relied solely
on experience to judge the success of management approaches (Cook et al., 2009). Thus
although quantitative data should be used wherever possible to justify the assessments
made in the METT, qualitative data will in many cases inevitably form the basis for
much of the reporting. In these cases additional steps related to who undertakes the
assessment (see 3.2.5) and processes of verification (see 3.2.7) are particularly important
to ensure that an accurate and valid assessment is made.
3.2.3: Adapt and translate
Best practices:
5. The METT is a generic tool designed for global use; thus it is
unlikely to fit one protected area (or system, type etc) of area
perfectly. Adaptation is encouraged; ideally by keeping the basic
format of the METT the same and adding to, rather than changing,
the wording of the METT (e.g. providing additional advice on
interpretation for local conditions or by additional questions).
Because the METT is used globally there are advantages in ensuring that the core
questions of the METT are always included in an assessment, to help facilitate
comparison between assessments made in different parts of the world, or different
protected areas within a single network. Adaptation is still possible however and can
take two forms:
i. Adding questions to cover issues missed by the original tool;
ii. Adding detailed instructions to the existing questionnaire, in order to relate the
METT better to local circumstances.
Hockings et al., 2015 state that: “The more clearly the categories [i.e. responses to
PAME questions] are defined for local circumstances, the more accurate and consistent
will be the responses”. They go on to discuss how the use of subjective terms – such as
‘adequate’, ‘sufficient’ and ‘appropriate’ – have been deliberately chosen in tools such as
the METT use to ensure that assessment categories can be applied to protected areas
in very different contexts. It is therefore important to ensure that definitions of what
is meant by general terms such as ‘adequate’, ‘sufficient’, ‘appropriate’ etc in a specific
country, portfolio or jurisdictional context are clear to all assessors, to avoid errors
derived from using poorly defined language.
The 2015 evaluation of the impact of GEF investments recommended that the GEF
supports countries in adapting the METT to make it more appropriate to their capacities
and information needs, noting this: “will help build country capacities in monitoring
parameters that they find useful for improving biodiversity conservation management
within their specific context, while still providing key information that can be compared
and analyzed at a global level” (GEF, 2015).

© FIONA LEVERINGTON
Marc Hockings The development of the Bhutan METT +, for example, included a fairly substantial
presenting at the refinement of the threat assessment and the addition of notes where specific multiple
training session for
choice questions needed more detail, along with addition of a number of extra questions
METT implantation in
Indonesia. (Dudley et al., 2016). The adaptation process was managed in two workshops with
managers and staff of protected areas, staff and experts from the ministry which
oversees protected areas and facilitated by two of the original developers of the METT
(Wildlife Conservation Division and Equilibrium Research, 2015). Other versions of
the METT which have been adapted with guidance for local implementation include
the Carpathian Countries Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
(CCPAMETT), see for example the version from Poland (Pap, 2012); the Management
Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected Areas managed by the Zambia Wildlife
Authority (METTPAZ) (Mwima, 2007); South Africa (Cowan et al., 2010) and Indonesia
(Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan, 2015)
The first version of the METT was translated into multiple languages (at least seven
and probably many more) however as there is no central repository of METT versions,
reports or advice most countries have a new translation made when using the METT.

3.2.4: Repeat the assessment
Best practices:
6. The METT is designed to track progress over time. Sites/networks
planning to implement the METT should thus aim to repeat the
assessments every few years; ideally the METT should be an
automatic part of annual planning.
Given the central role that protected areas play in conservation strategies, assessment
of their effectiveness should not be restricted to time-limited projects but rather
considered to be an integral part of everyday management. The relative simplicity of
the METT means that it can easily be used annually and the results integrated into
management and/or project planning. The METT was designed for repeated use to show
progress and users (e.g. Heffernan et al., 2004; Knights et al., 2014) have noted the true
benefit of the METT will largely be realized when future reviews are conducted and can
report on significant changes in management practices or local conditions.
From the data collected in the METT database, 90 countries have used the METT more
than once in at least one protected area (see section 7.2). Thus nearly half (almost 2
million km2) of the area where the METT has been implemented has seen more than one
assessment. However given the use of the METT by the GEF in large scale projects in
protected areas this is not particularly surprising.
3.2.5: Consult and get consensus
Best practices:
7. The implementation of the METT should wherever possible include
a wide range of rightsholders and stakeholders to aid insight in the
assessment results; including people outside the protected area,
such as local communities, will bring richer insights.
Although designed to be a self-assessment tool, the intent of the METT was to involve a
range of stakeholders in the assessment process. Although datasheet 1 of the METT includes
details of who has been involved in the assessment this information is often not completed
and thus few of the METTs collected on the METT database include this information. The
METT guidance notes state that implementation is best achieve through discussion and
consensus building with protected area, project or other agency/expert staff and “where
possible additional external experts, local community leaders or others with knowledge
and interest in the area and its management should also be involved” (Stolton et al., 2007,
pg 6). However this wide-ranging consultation process has not always been a feature of
implementation and as Coad et al. (2014) note “where funding for PAME assessments is
not ring-fenced within project budgets, PAME assessments may be conducted rapidly
with the minimum number of participants, reducing their robustness”.
The protected area manager/s should be actively involved in the assessment. As Cook
and Hockings (2011) state: “involving protected area managers in the evaluation process
demonstrates the importance of setting clear objectives, which will ultimately benefit
the day-to-day management of the protected area” and by being involved in the assessment
“the evaluation data are more likely to be used to improve management”. Research has
shown however that protected area managers on the whole are well placed to accurately
assess key management issues (Cook et al., 2014) and bias in METT responses, even
when linked to large-scale funding such as that provided by the GEF, is not a major issue
when completed as part of a participatory process (Zimsky et al., 2010).

© MARTIN HARVEY / WWF

Involving a Carbutt and Goodman (2013) also note that the accuracy of the METT score is
wide range of dependent on identifying the right staff members to be involved. They note that the
stakeholders ensures
METT comprises a broad range of assessment criteria, with no single individual best
more accurate and
representative METT placed to answer all of the questions with 100 per cent certainty. It is therefore essential
results. Local women to encourage the participation of a range of relevant staff members, to bring a wide
from Mwanachingwala range of expertise to the assessment table. They also stress the need for implementation
Conservation Area, planning to include practical steps such as informing staff about their requested
Zambia. involvement in the assessment in a timely fashion and allowing participants the time
and space to debate each question to help eliminate any bias, false perceptions or
prejudice inherent in such assessments.
Group discussions have been shown to result in better PAME results because discussion
can stimulate additional recollections from other members of the group (Cook et al.,
2014). In Zambia, where the METT was completed with peer review and full stakeholder
participation – including protected area managers, private sector in the form of tour and
lodge operations, and local communities living in the Game Management Areas (GMAs)
– the scores had more buy-in and were more accurate as more debate and discussion had
been undertaken before a score was decided upon. The METT thus serves not only as a
performance metric but also as a means to foster communication and participation in
the management of the protected area or GMA (Zimsky et al., 2010). A review of METT
use by the GEF found that higher mean METT scores were correlated with the presence
of protected area managers and staff; whereas scores were found to be lower by as much
as 0.1 (on a scale of 0 to 1) when community members, NGOs and external experts were
present (GEF, 2015). As a result of this, the GEF database on METT results now collects
data on the number of people involved. Data from over 800 assessments shows that
although some assessments are still only completed by one person, one site assessment
involved 70 people and the average number of people involved is five.
The METT datasheets allows for the type of stakeholders to be recorded (e.g. protected
area staff, local stakeholders, NGO staff etc). But again these simple check boxes are
rarely completed. As such it is hard to know who has been involved in implementing
the METT. But from the results from the 800 or so assessments collected by the GEF
it is clear that wider stakeholder participation in the METT is very rare, which must
certainly impact on the rigour of the results collected globally.

3.2.6: Build capacity and guidance
Best practices:
8. Although designed as a simple tool, implementing the METT may
be the first time protected area staff and other rightsholders and
stakeholders have been involved in assessing PAME. Thus some
capacity building is advisable so that all participants understand
PAME.
9. As a generic tool the METT questions can be interpreted differently

in different situations/jurisdictions. Thus developing a better
understanding of the METT and how it can be implemented in a
specific jurisdiction will help ensure valid results.
A common criticism of self-assessment is that differences in the interpretation of the

answers will create bias in the results. The multiple choice nature of the METT was
chosen as a contribution towards eliminating bias (many PAME questionnaires ask
for assessments to made on the basis of, for example, low, medium or high ratings,
without explanation of the rating systems). The possibility of bias is further minimized
through the standardization of the possible results through capacity building of
those undertaking the METT (Cook and Hockings, 2011) and training assessors to
standardized interpretation of indicators (Coad et al., 2014). For example, in Bhutan
where there are only 10 large protected area across the whole country, two or more
management staff per area were trained in workshops to understand and complete the
METT and protected area staff were able to discuss draft results together and develop
guidance for specific questions where needed (Dudley et al., 2016). In the Philippines,
on the other hand, team members met several times to discuss and build common
perception of the scores based on possible results prior to the field visits to review
the METT results (Inciong et al., 2013); similar processes were developed in Zambia
(Mwima, 2007).
Another critical element in building capacity before undertaking an assessment is to

ensure a complete understanding of the WCPA Framework. For each of the multiple
choice questions in the METT the element (or in some cases elements) of the framework
are provided. This helps those completing the METT to understand the focus of the
question (i.e. whether the question is about inputs or outputs; context or outcomes
etc). One review of the METT (Zimsky et al., 2010) noted that the classification used to
categorize the questions (inputs, process, etc.) was not useful and did not contribute or
add value to the process of completing a METT. However, when training participants
in using the METT dividing the questions into the elements of the WCPA Framework
not only helps with the understanding of the METT questions but ensures the WCPA
Framework is better explained.
One challenge with capacity building Cook et al (2014) noted, when reviewing PAME
assessments (not using the METT) in Australia, is that workshops, training sessions
and written guidelines were not sufficient to prevent discrepancies when eliciting expert
knowledge. As this is the only research that has been carried out to specifically assess
the quality of PAME inputs from protected area managers it is hard to know if this is a
country/PAME tool specific problem (although it is likely that similar issues will apply
more broadly across the suite of PAME assessment systems), and thus more research on
this issue would be useful.
Specific capacity building material may also be useful, such as provision of PowerPoint
slides of each question, which can be projected and filled in collaboratively if several
different stakeholders are involved.

© EQUILIBRIUM RESEARCH
Meetings with
park staff and
3.2.7: Verify results
local community
representatives
Best practices:
during a verification
field visit to Jigme 10. A lthough designed as a self-assessment tool METT implementation
Singye Wangchuck can involve verification processes; from simple checking of
National Park, completed METTs to more detailed field verification exercises.
Tingtibi Range
Office as part of
the Bhutan METT +
implementation
As noted above, repeat assessments are intended to show change in management
over time. However reporting change may also be influenced by the desire of staff to
show that their sites and management have improved; this may particularly be the
case when METT results are linked to funding – as is the case with the GEF. One of
the main criticisms of the METT is that it relies on purely subjective responses by the
management agency and partners to questions, with no field verification (e.g. Johns,
2012) and scoring system can be subject to one-sided opinions and perspectives in
the absence of peer review, thereby introducing subjectivity and bias (e.g. Carbutt and
Goodman, 2013). Projects to build capacity might be tempted to score themselves low
to start with and progressively higher over time: such manipulation definitely does
sometimes occur. Employing external experts to participate in the evaluation process
is increasingly being used, and recommended, in a range of PAME processes (Cook
and Hockings, 2011). Some independent auditing can therefore be valuable when
implementing METT projects.
There are many different options for verifying METT results, including:
• Verification as part of the assessment process: The implementation plan for

the METT can include a detailed discussion and presentation process to develop,
elaborate, clarify and/or present the METT assessment findings, using interviews
and discussions groups to discuss the results. Such processes were noted in
implementations in the Philippines (Guiang and Braganza, 2014) and Zambia
(Zimsky et al., 2010).
• Desk study verification: Either getting experts who are familiar with the site to
peer review the results, or undertaking a short desk study to validate the assessment
results, can be a relatively quick and cheap verification process. The 2007 analysis
by WWF included the use of the METT in repeat assessments where management

improvements were recorded. Detailed comparison of two assessments from an

individual site in Cameroon was carried out through a short desktop study and
development of a case study. The study demonstrated a richer picture of the changing
status and effectiveness at the site (Boumba Bek and Nki protected area) following
management interventions and support (Dudley et al., 2007).
• Field study verification: In Bhutan, field visits involving a selection of sites

which had completed the METT were carried out prior to finalising results (Wildlife
Conservation Division and Equilibrium Research, 2016). The field visits included the
opportunity to talk to protected area managers, staff and community leaders and
visit offices and staff outpost, which provided useful insights and context into the
management of the site.
• Detailed verification process. Although not used in the METT assessment,

verification processes that provide thorough checks of protected areas data are being
developed for the Conservation Assured and Green List processes (see section 5.3).
3.2.8: Implement recomendations
Best practices:
11. Completing the METT is only the first step of the assessment; the
implementation process should include adaptive management (e.g.
a plan of action to implement results) and communications process
to share results locally and globally.
The METT should not be viewed as an academic exercise but rather as an aid to good
conservation planning and management. Thus the METT score should not be seen
as a “pass” or “fail” but as an indication of the level of effective management. Many
METT studies (see section 7.2) report on the assessment in terms of the six elements
of the WCPA Framework as recommended in the METT (e.g. see Inciong et al., 2013;
Mwima, 2007, etc), helping highlight specific areas of management weakness, and
thus providing a better indicator of effectiveness than an overall score. However, very
few include specific action plans, let alone with details such as clarity about timeline
of action, responsibility, budget etc, which will ensure the results of the METT are
implemented The most likely reason for this is that the next steps section of the METT
has not be adequately filled in (see 3.2.2.) and thus turning the METT into an adaptive
management planning tool is difficult. One effective use of the score used in some
countries (e.g. Indonesia) is to translate the scores in actionable outputs, i.e. identify
activities to improve low scoring questions and set targets for improvement.
Communicating the results of the METT is also important – to all those involved as well
as to protected area management authorities, funders etc. Section 7.2 details several
of the reports and papers that have been developed about the implementation of the
METT. Many of these have been project reports and analyses by users and most have
remained in the grey literature, although METT results have been included in peer-
reviewed studies of global data sets. Communication is important for those who have
been involved in the assessment, so they can see if and how results have been used; to
managers of protected areas so they can react to the proposals and more generally to
politicians and civil society, to show how protected areas are performing.

Case study 2
Bhutan METT+
Authors: Sue Stolton, Nigel Dudley, Sonam Wangchuk, Dechen Lham and Shubash Lohani
Jigme Dorji National Bhutan is a land-locked, mountainous country with a small population and a strong
Park, Bhutan. commitment to sustainable development. It has set aside over half the country into
protected areas, mainly but not exclusively in the high mountain areas. Bhutan has rich
wildlife, including viable populations of tigers and many endemic species.
The METT was applied to all ten protected areas in Bhutan and the Royal Botanic Park,
as a key stage in developing a State of the Parks report for the country and as part of an
awareness raising programme on the Conservation Assured | Tiger Standards (CA|TS,
see section 5.2). While the METT was used as the core of the assessment, considerable
modifications were made in association with the Bhutan government and protected
area managers and staff. The Bhutan Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
Plus (Bhutan METT +) was developed at training workshops organized by the Bhutan
Wildlife Conservation Department (WCD), in Lobesa, Punakha in 2015 and at the Royal
Botanic Park Lamperi in 2016. Representatives from the WCD, 10 protected areas and
the Royal Botanic Park and core team of the Department of Forest and Parks Services
worked with Equilibrium Research to develop the recommendations that led to the
design of the Bhutan METT + in 2016.
The basic structure of the METT was not changed, to allow the results to feed into the
global database. Adaptations took four forms:
1. Adaptation of the threats assessment to allow for current and potential threats and
issues (which could become threats if not effectively managed) to be identified.
2. New tools added to the METT to provide a more detailed assessment of: (i) threats,
looking at spatial and temporal issues of threats considered of medium or high

Developing and significance (current or potential) and suggested management actions to mitigate
implementing the threats; (ii) an assessment sheet of national context looking at the extent to
Bhutan METT +
which current policy supported protected area management; and (iii) outcomes,
baseline data will be collated to develop a set of headline indicators for monitoring
biodiversity in Bhutan; once these are agreed work will start on developing detailed
indicators and monitoring systems and protocols for the headline indicators.
3. Guidance notes on the interpretation of the METT in Bhutan, particularly with

respect to the threats assessment and some of the multiple choice questions.
4. Additional questions added to the METT relating to e.g., climate change and
transboundary influences along with some modifications to existing METT questions
and to the background data sheet.
A “Rosetta Stone” version of the Bhutan METT + was produced which shows clearly the
changes and additions to the METT. This version has been edited and revised to produce
final version of the Bhutan METT+ 2016.
The METT was filled in for five sites in a workshop situation in 2015; and for all the sites
in 2016, when field verification also took place for three of the protected areas, including
interviews with local stakeholders conducted by external specialists. Data from all the
METTs has been reviewed by WCD and external specialists and has been collated and
analysed to show relative strengths and weaknesses and to identify important next
steps for both individual protected areas and for the national protected area system as a
whole. The State of the Parks report will be published in late 2016.

4. METT QUESTION-BY-
@ MARC HOCKINGS
QUESTION GUIDANCE
The METT was designed to be a simple tool which could be picked up and
used with minimal training. However, experience has shown that this may
be over-optimistic, and that most users need some help to get the best
possible use out of the assessment. Over the years since its first publication
and use, various training courses have been developed around using the
METT. The section below reviews each part of the METT and, drawing
on the experience of using and training users, provides more detailed
guidance, with particular emphasis on the multiple choice questions.
Photo: Implementing the METT in Indonesia

4.1. METT guidance

The third edition of the METT (Stolton et al., 2007) includes basic guidance on how
to complete the assessment. This should be carefully read before any assessment
begins. The additional explanatory notes given below can help explain specific elements
of the METT.
4.2. Explanatory Notes: Data Sheet

Most of the information needed to fill out the datasheets should be readily available;
either in documentation on site or easily accessible via websites (see links given below).
However some sections, such as identification of management objectives, will take
longer if these have not previously been identified and recorded.
Data sheet 1
Name of protected area: this should be the full name; and the same as that included
on any official list (from the government, World Database of Protected Areas etc). If
the site is known by more than one name, or if the name has changed recently, include
alternatives, stressing which one is now the “official” name.
WDPA Code: Each protected area has a code, which is listed on the World Database
of Protected Areas and is a unique identifier. Nowadays this can be found most easily
on the Protected Planet website12. Type the name of the protected area into the “Start
Exploring” box, open the record for the site and the WDPA ID is listed on the top left of
the page.
Designations: National: this refers to the national category – such as national park,
wilderness reserve, nature reserve, etc. Identification is important because in most
countries particular designations will have their own policies, rules and sometimes
legislation.
Designation: IUCN category: most, but by no means all, protected areas are also
identified by the national government as falling into one of the six IUCN management
categories. This is important, because the way that individual countries define
something like a national park might be very different in terms of the way that it is
managed: the IUCN category provides an international standard. IUCN categories are
also listed on the WDPA. The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, which
manages the WDPA, only lists the IUCN category if it is proposed by the government,
so if none exists, this section should be left blank. Further information: Guidelines for
Applying Protected Area Management Categories (Dudley, 2008).
Designation: international: explained in more detail on the second page of the data
sheet. This collects information on regional or global designations, such as UNESCO
World Heritage or ASEAN Heritage.
Date of establishment: this is sometimes complicated, depending on the type of

protected area and the legal process involved. In the case of state protected areas it
would usually be date of legal establishment, but sometimes government-run protected
areas operate for years before the legal process of establishment is completed and in this
case a common-sense approach is needed, listing the date when the protected area was
agreed by the government. In sites where the designation has changed over time (for
instance if a nature reserve has been changed to a national park) list both dates: first
establishment of a protected area and later change in national designation. For privately
protected areas this is generally easier: usually the date of purchase or the date when an
area of land or water was announced as a protected area.

What are the main values for which the area is designated: this may sometimes
be written down formally (for instance in application for World Heritage status or in the
protected area management plan), or it may be implicit. It is important to note whether
the protected area is designated primarily to protect a whole habitat (such as a coral reef
or rainforest) or whether it is to protect a certain species or group (like a seabird colony
or a rare plant).
List two primary protected area management objectives: objectives should be

in the management plan, although there will often be more than two. In this case, or
if objectives are not formally written down, people compiling the METT will need to
agree the two most important management objectives. These should be conservation
objectives rather than, for instance, tourism management or supply of ecosystem
services, although these will also be important for many protected areas. Identifying
the management objectives of the site being assessed is important as the assessment
of management then made in the rest of the METT should be made against these
objectives.
Number of people involved in completing the assessment: it is important that the

assessment should not be carried out by one or two people in isolation but that it should
be a discussion between various rightsholders and stakeholders (see section 4.2.5). Use
this section to identify who is involved.
Please note if assessment was carried out in association with a particular project, on
behalf of an organisation or donor: for example as a condition of getting a GEF grant, or
because it is standard government policy.
Information on international designations: UNESCO World Heritage site: most

of the information needed should be on the UNESCO World Heritage list13 , which is in
alphabetical order of country. Each site entry includes key information on date listed
(the date when the World Heritage Committee recognised the site as belonging to the
WH List), the name, which may be different from the name used in the country, and
area. It will also include the criterion or criteria for which the site were listed, which
can just be identified by their number in the METT, and the statement of Outstanding
Universal Value (what makes the site unique), which should be pasted into the relevant
space in the METT form. Further information: Outstanding universal value: Standards
for natural world heritage (Badman et al, 2008).
Information on international designations: Ramsar site: all information needed is

available on the Ramsar site in the section Ramsar Sites Information Service14.
Information on international designations: Man and the Biosphere Reserves: again

key data should be on the website. However, identification of the three main functions of
MAB may be more difficult because most MAB reserves have not been formally assessed
(nor is there a system for doing so within UNESCO). The website15 will give basic data
on establishment, size etc but criteria for designation and fulfilment of the three main
aims of the biosphere reserve will need to be worked out by protected area staff and
other stakeholders.

© NIGEL DICKINSON / WWF

Understanding the
full impact of threats
Data sheet 2
to protected areas is Threats data sheet: this should be fairly self-evident. Threats are ranked as of high
an important part significance if they are seriously degrading values; medium if they are having some
of the METT. The
assessment includes
negative impact and low if they are present but not seriously impacting values. Not
threats both inside applicable (N/A) is selected when the threat is either not present or not applicable
protected areas in the protected area. In most cases threats refer to activities within the protected
and threats, such area in a few activities beside or near the protected area might also be important (for
as dams, which example a mine on the edge of a protected area would bring new people into the area
are outside the
boundaries but can
and might increase pressure within the protected area itself, or mine tailings could
have major impacts pollute otherwise protected watercourses). The data sheet is limited as it does not look
on hydrology in at either the spatial impact (e.g. does the threat impact the whole area or just a small
a protected area. part) or temporal impact (e.g. is the impact all the time or only during certain parts of
Hydro-electric dam the year), nor does it suggest management actions. As the title implies, this element of
under construction in
Honduras.
the METT is intended to record data already known and protected areas really should
have a more detailed threat assessment/monitoring system to aid management planning
and implementation. Other more detailed threat assessments exists (see for example
Hockings et al., 2008), and adaptations of the METT have developed more detailed
assessments, based on this datasheet but providing more detailed information for
management.
Additional points follow:
• Threat 2.1a Medicinal plant cultivation: Note that the collection of species from the
wild is covered in threat 5.2
• Threat 3.3 Energy generation including HEP: This question looks specifically at threats
within protected areas. Hydropower developments outside protected areas can still
impact on the protected area, the impact of such threats is covered in threat 7.2.
• Threat 4.3 Flight paths: It should be stressed that this threat is considering flight
paths of aeroplanes, hot air balloons, gliders etc, not the flight paths of birds
• Threat 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises: this can include intrusion of
political insurgency from across national borders

• Threat 7. Natural system modification: Whereas threat 3 looked at impacts of

infrastructure development in protected areas, threat 7 looks at impacts which may
occur from developments far away from the protected area. Threat 7.2 should record
impacts on habitat or changes in the way the ecosystem functions, such as changing
water flow patterns.
4.3. Explanatory Notes: Assessment Form

The following notes provide specific guidance on individual multiple choice questions,
which make up the main assessment element of the METT, and where necessary
further sources of information. The questions are dealt with in the order they appear
on the METT. For each topic noted below an overarching question is provided and four
possible answers. As well as ticking the appropriate answer to the questions the notes
and justification narrative section should be used to provide details of why the specific
answer was given. If the METT has not been adapted then notes may also be needed on
why a specific answer has been given, particularly if the situation described in the by
the answer/score does not totally fit the realities of the protected area. The narrative
section detailing next steps should be used to outline adaptive management actions if
the response to the assessment reveals management weaknesses.
1. Legal status: this usually only refers to state-managed protected areas. In the case
of many private reserves and indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs) legal
status is not an option and this question is not applicable. Where such protected areas
do have some formal status (e.g. a covenant or legal recognition of Indigenous Protected
Areas) this should be listed. Further information: Guidelines for Protected Area
Legislation (Lausche, 2011).
2. Protected area regulations: the term “regulation” can refer to both legal and
customary controls; for instance protected areas managed by private individuals, trusts
or communities should still have clear rules regarding use of land and water.
3. Law enforcement: here “staff” relates to both those formally employed and those
responsible for management in other governance types. The question refers to both
personal capacity (training, skills) and sufficiency of equipment and infrastructure
(vehicles, routes to access remote areas, etc.) The next steps section should identify
needs if the score is low.
4. Protected area objectives: this question refers back in part to the key management
objectives already identified in the datasheet. Were these obvious or did the assessment
group have to work them out? If the latter, this probably means that overall management
has not considered the objectives of the protected area in sufficient detail. Key references
include the original legislation establishing the reserve, in the case of state-run protected
areas, and management plans, information and knowledge of day-to-day activities. Lack of
clear objectives probably means that management is itself undirected and likely
inefficient: a process for firming up objectives (for instance a stakeholder workshop)
should if necessary be noted in next steps.
5. Protected area design: issues to consider here include whether key species are
adequately protected (for instance it would be an issue if a marine protected area
omitted a nearby area where many of the constituent species bred), whether it is large
enough to support viable populations and whether events outside the protected area
could undermine its value (for instance if a hydroelectric power project dammed a river
and interrupted flow). It is also important to consider, where possible, projected future
climate change influence in this assessment: for instance if sea level rises is there space
in the protected area for a mangrove forest to retreat inland?

6. Protected area boundary demarcation: it is important staff, stakeholders and

rightsholders recognise the boundary and that people know if they are encroaching
the protected area. Note that a few boundaries will by their nature be unstable: if the
boundary is a river bank or a shoreline the precise location can change quite markedly
over time. Such changes may become more marked under climate change: for example
the coastline may retreat inland.
7. Management plan: in most cases this will be a formal management plan, written
down and in the case of government protected areas also approved by the relevant
department or ministry. In other cases management plans may be less formal, agreed
through discussion with community members, and existing only as oral agreements,
minutes of meetings or other less formal arrangements. The aim of this question is to
see whether or not management is following a set and logical course. Further
information: Guidelines for Management Planning of Protected Areas (Thomas and
Middleton, 2003).
There are a number of additional questions in the METT (7a,b,c; 21a,b,c; 24a,b,c; and
30a,b,c), which go beyond the basic assessment and identify whether particular best
practices are in place. All of these additional questions should be considered during the
assessment (as with the other METT questions, the extra best practice questions add
up to a total score of 3 and therefore fit the scoring framework). However it is common
for assessors to answer only one of the 3 additional points possibly because assessors
do not understand that they can score any or all of the additional points. If any further
additions of the METT are produced it should be made clear that they should give 1 or 0
as an answer to ALL the additional questions.
7a. Planning process: opportunities for key stakeholders to influence planning: “key
stakeholders” in this case refers to people beyond the immediate management authority;
such as local communities or indigenous peoples living in or near the protected area,
sometimes also tourism operators, local government and industry: if there have been
no such involvement the next steps column should identify those people who should in
future be involved.
7b. Planning process: periodic review: many formal management plans cover
5-10 year periods. But many things can change over this length of time; such as new
pressures, changing weather patterns, new opportunities. This question captures
whether there is a way to make sure such changes are integrated into management, and
lessons learned as management proceeds.
7b. Planning process: monitoring results: the fact that monitoring takes place, and
assessments are carried out, is no guarantee that the results are incorporated into
management. The question addresses this and if answered negatively the next steps
column should include concrete, time-bound proposals to address the lack. Further
information: Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit: Assessing management effectiveness of
natural World Heritage sites (Hockings et al., 2008).
8. Regular work plan: this will usually refer to an annual plan, aimed at implementing
the next stage of the management plan.
9. Resource inventory: in this case “resources” refers primarily to biological and

cultural values of the site. Have there been recent surveys of plant and animal species?
Do managers know where culturally important sites or sacred natural sites exist so
these can be protected? In next steps it is important to identify knowledge gaps and
suggestions for future surveys.
10. Protection systems: the question focuses particularly on enforcement, and will
be applicable in places where there is pressure from poaching, encroachment, illegal
mining etc. In protected areas with no such pressures, designation and management in
itself can be judged “largely or wholly effective”. This is less about capacity and resources

© TANYA PETERSEN / WWF

The relationship for enforcement (already addressed in question (3) and more aimed at whether this
between research capacity is being used effectively enough. Highly trained and well-resourced rangers
and protected area
are being out-manoeuvred by poaching gangs with even better resources; this question
management is vital,
so it is important to aims to determine whether current enforcement activities are sufficient for the pressures
document research being faced.
activities when
completing the METT. 11. Research: this could include both research work carried out by the protected
Leatherback turtle nest area itself but more usually by associates, volunteers, students and academics. In the
count in Panama
case of protected areas run by communities or indigenous peoples it would include,
for instance, surveys of species being used for subsistence, such as fish or non-timber
forest products, to ensure a sustainable supply. Monitoring and evaluation is addressed
in another question (26); here the emphasis is on particular research projects that can
help to understand and thus better manage the site. The presence of researchers is not
enough to evoke the top score, but only if research is properly integrated into the needs
of protected area management.
12. Resource management: Management here refers to activities in addition to

enforcement, such as various forms of restoration and habitat creation, monitoring of
population numbers, fencing where necessary and the control of invasive species. Where
sustainable resource extraction is permitted, management will include monitoring
of these resources, possibly introduction of temporary zoning etc. Management also
includes active steps to protect culturally and spiritually important sites.
13. Staff numbers: answering this question might be slightly more difficult for
community-managed sites; here the issue will be more generally one of having sufficient
number of people involved for there to be capacity to manage rather than “employment”
in a traditional sense. In some remote protected areas, with few pressures, there may be
no permanent staff but rather one person will have oversight of several protected areas:
in this case the answer would fall somewhere between the second and fourth of the
answers.

14. Staff training: again this question can refer to both formal staff members and/
or others involved in management. Training needs to be in relevant disciplines; it is
not uncommon for protected area staff to be seconded from other institution, such as
forestry; although these people have received training it is largely irrelevant to the job in
hand. Next steps should list any important training gaps.
15. Current budget: this question relates to the total amount of budget, rather than
to budget security, addressed in question (16). Virtually every protected area rates
themselves as inadequately financed! This is not aimed at identifying whether more
money would be useful but whether there is sufficient budget to carry out effective
management and to implement a realistic management plan.
16. Security of budget: the main question here is whether the budget is reliant
on intermittent project funding or whether there is a reasonable chance of it being
maintained over time – for instance because it is a core part of a government budget,
or maintained through a private trust, or has low costs and strong volunteer support.
Further information: Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas (Emerton et al., 2006).
17. Management of budget: is budget expenditure properly planned and monitored

through the year or is there usually a serious overspend or under spend? Are accounts
published annually? If the answer reveals serious weaknesses the next steps column
should suggest concrete ways forward, such as drawing up an annual budget, hiring a
qualified accountant or bringing in a permanent or temporary business manager.
18. Equipment: this could include, for example, vehicles, communication systems,
tools, uniforms, shows; but also contributory materials like fuel.
19. Equipment maintenance: large amounts of money are wasted in protected

areas because equipment is broken and never repaired; either because there is no-
one available with the skills to carry out simple maintenance or because a culture
develops where replacement becomes the norm. If this question scores low next steps
should suggest practical ways of addressing this, either by identifying or employing a
maintenance officer (for instance from the local community) or introducing training to
ensure that protected area staff have the requisite skills themselves.
20. Education and awareness: this question covers education both for learning
establishments, such as schools programmes, and the provision of more general
educational opportunities for local communities or recreational visitors.
21. Planning for land and water use: note that this question relates to planning
processes outside the protected area. Protected area effectiveness can be seriously
undermined by actions that take place beyond its boundaries, such as pollution,
alterations to hydrology, and development of infrastructure such as roads and rail links.
Does the protected area have any influence on surrounding decisions? Do managers or
communities managing protected areas engage in wider planning discussions? Does
the government take account of the protected area when undertaking broader planning
exercises?
21a. Land and water planning for habitat conservation: this additional question
narrows down the focus of question (21) by focusing on surrounding environmental
conditions, such as pollution levels, hydrology etc. Relatively few protected areas will be
able to score this additional point.
21b: Land and water planning for connectivity: is the protected area connected to
other similar habitats or is it isolated? Particular issues here is the potential for animal
migration or animal movement to prevent species becoming inbred, opportunities for
fish migration along rivers, and the presence of buffer zones around protected areas
to prevent edge effects and encroachment. If not, is there anything that can be done to
improve the situation?

© EDWARD PARKER / WWF

Caption: When 21c: Land and water planning for ecosystem services: this is a complicated
completing the question because it could involve two different issues: managing ecosystems to protect
METT questions particular species (e.g. use of fire to maintain savannah habitat) or management for
on local and ecosystem services beneficial to human society, such as managing cloud forest habitat
indigenous people to maintain downstream water supplies. The comments section should stipulate what
it is important ecosystem services are being considered here.
to include local
people in the 22. State and commercial neighbours: this is particularly aimed at land and water
assessment users that either benefit from or directly impact ecosystems within the protected
process. Fishing area: for instance water users (mineral water suppliers, municipal water supplies,
community in hydroelectric projects); but also ranchers, forest companies and those involved in
Amazonas State, extractive industries. Note that tourism operators are the subject of their own question
Brazil. (28). Question 22 is aimed at pinpointing the extent to which a protected area either
cooperates or remains isolated from the wider community that influences it: if it scores
zero, next steps could list key neighbours that should be contacted.
23. Indigenous and traditional peoples: this will be not applicable in cases where
there are no indigenous people present. Note that different countries use a range of
terms to describe such cultures: ethnic minorities, traditional peoples etc. Further
information: Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas: Principles,
Guidelines and Case Studies (Beltrán, 2000); Indigenous and Local Communities and
Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation (Borrini-Feyerabend et
al., 2004)
24. Local communities: to score 2 or 3 in this question the communities should also
have a reasonable amount of influence on the overall decision: mere consultation is not
sufficient.
24a. Impact on communities – open communication and trust: some explanatory

comment is particularly important if this score is given, justifying why. Further
information: Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity
and Enhanced Conservation (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004)
24b. Impact on communities – programmes of community welfare: this could

include both programmes directly related to the protected area, such as managed use of
non-timber forest products or fish resources, and programmes initiated by the protected
area for the general good, such as developing schools or supporting healthcare.

24c. Impact on communities – active support: again evidence is needed if this

additional score is given; examples could include voluntary patrolling, help with surveys,
provide political support amongst local government etc.
25. Economic benefit: this question is aimed explicitly at local communities rather
than outside businesses, such as tourism companies; the latter might be included if
they employ a significant number of local people. Economic benefits include direct jobs,
Payment for Ecosystem Service schemes, indirect benefits from increased tourism or
sales to visitors, and other options such as guiding.
26. Monitoring and evaluation: most monitoring will be directly by protected

area staff; in some cases volunteers or local communities will also be involved. In the
comments section list what is monitored and how often. In next steps identify any
important gaps in monitoring that need to be filled.
27. Visitor facilities: not all protected areas need visitor facilities; this question is
judging against the perceived need.
28. Commercial tourism operators: tourism can either be a help or a hindrance to

protected areas; in addition the presence of a protected area is a draw to tourists and
thus a boost to trade. Tourism operators should be natural partners but this doesn’t
always happen. If this question generates a low score next steps could identify in very
concrete terms some of the key people it would be important to talk to and develop
cooperation with.
29. Fees: not all protected areas should or do collect fees; this question is not applicable
in these cases. The aim here is more to find out, where fees are an expected part of
the protected area management, whether they are used to help management or simply
disappear into the government and provide no support for the generating resource.
30. Condition of values: the METT really measures management and outputs and
does not consider outcomes in detail; this one question covers both biological and
cultural values and is simply an indication of whether staff and other stakeholders
believe that the fundamental objectives are being met. The comments section can give
further details, including data if this is available, and also can distinguish between the
relative success of conserving biological and cultural values if there are differences
between the two.
30a. Condition of values: monitoring: if scoring yes for this question, details of type
of monitoring should be given in the comments section.
30b. Condition of values: management programmes: again, if yes, list the

programmes in the comments section.
30c. Condition of values: routine part of management: in a growing number of the

most popular protected areas, most staff are assigned to visitor management or possibly
enforcement, and actual conservation management gets sidelined. This question is
aimed at identifying where such management is lacking and next steps should list any
identified needs.
4.4. Filling the gaps: guidance on additional METT

questions
As discussed above the nature of the METT, which aims to be easy and relatively quick
to use, means that there are some management issues usually associated with PAME
assessments which are only minimally covered in the METT. Over the years of use
several adaptations have been developed to fill these gaps. Some of these are discussed
below. Many of the adaptations are also listed in section 7.3 and can be reviewed for
further guidance and ideas when planning to implement the METT.

4.4.1. Outcome assessment

WWF’s versions of the METT (Stolton et al., 2002a and 2007) are explicit about the
strengths and weakness of the tool. From the initial development of the METT in
2002, the authors noted that the scorecard approach which forms much of the METT
has limitations (see section 7.1). Specifically, although all six elements of the WCPA
Framework are represented in the METT, most of the questions relate to planning,
inputs and process (reflecting the tools “source” document, Appendix II in the WCPA
Framework document). The METT was always acknowledged as being too limited to
allow for a detailed evaluation of outcomes (see section 7.1 and 4.4). “Clearly, however
good management is, if biodiversity continues to decline, the protected area objectives
are not being met.” (Stolton et al., 2007, pg 5). The fact that the METT is explicit about
its limitations in terms of assessing outcomes has however not stopped researchers
criticizing the tool for its lack of ability to measure outcomes (e.g. Nolte and Agrawal,
2012).
Various adaptations of the METT have included an additional section on outcomes

(see case studies from PNG, Ramsar and Bhutan all of which have added section on
outcomes). The latest GEF adaptation of the METT (see box 1) includes an additional
worksheet, which asks for a set of indicators and records the data sources and methods
used to assess the overall condition of biodiversity in the protected area. This provides
a more detailed justification of the answer given to question 30 of the METT, which
assesses outcomes.
Perhaps the best way to assess the relationship between METT scores and conservation
outcomes is to use a variety of independent datasets (Knights et al., 2014). Suitable
data could come from analysis of forest cover changes over time, or species population
trends, within and outside protected areas as is being suggested in the Bhutan METT
+ (Dudley et al., 2016). Some commentators have suggested additional questions on
outcomes and their causes (e.g. Coad et al., 2015), however to cover outcomes in the
METT comprehensively would require such a fundamental change to the tool that many
of its overriding objectives as an entry-level, cost effective and simple tool to apply
could be lost. Conversely, the review of GEF usage of the METT suggested streamlining
to focus on information that can be used in conjunction with existing global datasets
and geospatial data, to perform meaningful analyses on management effectiveness
and biodiversity impacts at a global level (GEF, 2015). One option is to include more
guidance on using the tool as part of a site level assessment system as is being proposed
in Bhutan.
As Nolte and Agrawal (2012) suggest, more effort in understanding the relation between
protected area management, protected area effectiveness, and the indicators used to
measure both is needed. They also note that to understand why some areas are effective
and what type of support makes them effective, “future analyses will need to examine
causation rather than correlation”.
4.4.2. Spatial and temporal issues

Research into the use of a range of self-assessment PAME tools found widespread
misconceptions amongst protected areas managers about the scope, scale and/or
timeframe of evaluation. This is a particular problem when managers alter the scope of
the assessment depending on the attributes of the reserves (e.g., assessing the whole of
small reserves but only frequently-visited areas of large reserves). Failing to standardize
the scale, timeframe and scope for the evaluation could therefore introduce a systematic
bias into the evaluations (Cook et al., 2014).
The impacts of spatial differences across protected areas are not covered in the METT
and thus those completing the METT can face difficulties in assessing the questions,
as there can be a lot of variation in management effectiveness, especially across large

© MICHEL GUNTHER / WWF

Managing for the protected areas. Zimsky et al. (2010) suggests that larger protected areas may benefit
impacts if climate from applying the METT to sub-areas of the protected area, rather than the entire
change has become
protected area. In Bhutan, where several of the protected areas cover vast areas and
a far more urgent
task for protected where much of the management is devolved the Bhutan METT + was completed for
area managers over individual range offices.
the last few years.
For example, almost all
of the 47 large glaciers
in Patagonia’s Los 4.4.3. Climate change
Glaciares National Park
have retreated over the When the METT was developed, knowledge of the role of protected areas in mitigating
past 50 years. climate change and the impacts of climate change on protected areas was still
developing. Over the last 15 years the evidence of impacts and understanding about how
protected areas can help in mitigating these impacts has increased rapidly. The addition of
new METT questions to track the effects of climate change on protected areas was first
proposed by WWF in 2009 to support REDD mechanisms, and by the United Nations
Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) as part
of the Protected Areas Resilient to Climate Change, PARCC West Africa project in 2012
(Belle et al., 2012). One set of suggestions is given below.

Issue Criteria Score Comment/ Next steps

explanation
a. Is the protected area being There have been no efforts to consider 0
consciously managed to adapt adaptation to climate change in
to climate change? management
Some initial thought has taken place 1
about likely impacts of climate change,
but this has yet to be translated into
management plans
Detailed plans have been drawn up 2
about how to adapt management to
predicted climate change, but these
have yet to be translated into active
management.
Detailed plans have been drawn up 3
about how to adapt management to
predicted climate change, and these are
already being implemented
b. Is the protected area being Carbon storage and carbon dioxide 0
consciously managed to capture have not been considered in
prevent carbon loss and to management of the protected area
encourage further carbon
Carbon storage and carbon dioxide 1
capture?
capture have been considered in general
terms, but has not yet been significantly
reflected in management
There are active measures in place to 2
reduce carbon loss from the protected
area, but no conscious measures to
increase carbon dioxide capture
There are active measures in place both 3
to reduce carbon loss from the protected
area and to increase carbon dioxide
capture
However to date these questions have not been added to the METT, although they have
been included in METT adaptations (e.g. the Bhutan METT +, see Dudley et al., 2016).
4.4.4. Social dimensions

Although there has been much work on developing tools to assess social and governance
issues of protected areas management, there remains no equivalent tool such as the
METT for measuring progress towards the CBDs goal of equitable protected area
management. A review of the synergies between PAME and social or governance
assessment (Burgess et al., 2014) suggested that: “one of the logical ways to enhance the
collection of governance and (especially) social data would be to augment the METT”.
WWF Tanzania has already developed a METT+ Social (unpublished) including a
range of questions which are provided here. Unlike the rest of the METT not all these
questions are relevant globally (specifically questions regarding livelihood outcomes
may not be relevant in protected areas with no residents in developed countries) they
nonetheless provide a useful starting place to developing a METT adaptation which
focus more on the important issue of equity in protected area management.


explanation
a. What are the improvements Livelihood outcomes have been 0
in livelihood outcomes as a reduced
result of conservation efforts?
(e.g. income, employment, There is no change (better or worse) 1
payment for environmental in livelihood outcomes
services?)
There are some limited 2

improvements in livelihood
outcomes
There is significant improvement in 3
livelihood outcomes
b. Is there equal opportunities Only one gender participates in the 0
involvement in management? management of the protected area
Management is mainly by one 1
gender, with marginal participation
of the other gender
Management is mainly by one 2
gender, with marginal participation
of the other gender but there are
active efforts by the management to
encourage more equal participation
There is equal participation in 3
management
4.4.5. Transboundary issues

Some countries face particular challenges from cross-border issues, often poaching
but also increasingly human migration, pollution, and the impacts of armed conflict
or insurgency. There is therefore an argument for including a question specifically on
transboundary issues:

explanation
Neighbouring protected areas There is no contact between 0
managers of adjoining protected
areas on issues which impact
protected area management
Is there co-operation with effectiveness
adjoining protected areas
There is limited contact between 1
(national and international)?
areas but little cooperation on
issues which impact protected area
Process
There is contact between managers 2
of adjoining protected areas and
some cooperation on protected area
There is regular contact between 3
areas and full cooperation on
ensuring management effectiveness

Case study 3
Papua New Guinea: Protected Areas Assessment Project
Authors: Fiona Leverington, Ann Peterson and Greg Peterson
© ANN PETERSON
Participants from
Varirata National Park
start the METT process
by drawing images of
the main values of their
protected areas, this
helps easy translation
into a more formal
statement of values
and benefits and then
completion of the
adapted METT
In 2016 the Government of Papua New Guinea (PNG), through its

Conservation and Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) and
with the support of United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program
(SPREP), organised an evaluation of its protected areas, as part of
the process to improve management effectiveness.
The need to undertake PAME assessments is enshrined in PNG’s Policy on Protected
Areas, which commits to regular evaluation and to taking remedial action to
improve effectiveness over time (Independent State of Papua New Guinea, 2014). The
development of a PAME system for PNG therefore needed to be practical and economic
to apply and CEPA staff and other partners needed to understand the methodology
and how to best apply it in the field. Therefore a relatively simple and straightforward
methodology was developed based on the 2007 METT.
As most protected areas in PNG are on land owned and managed by the customary
landowners, and have no government employees, the METT needed to be adapted
to local circumstances. Many of the METT questions have been worded for people
very familiar with protected area issues, and in the PNG context this would have
caused some level of confusion or ambiguity, particularly for those unfamiliar with
protected area management jargon. Rather than relying only on facilitators to clarify
questions, explanatory notes were added to the questionnaire for most questions.
This helped improve its reliability and to increase consistency when the questions are
applied at different times and by different people. However, it is also essential that the
questionnaire is applied in workshops with trained facilitators who have a more in-
depth understanding of the questions and the logic behind them. In some cases, the
questionnaire part of the METT was duplicated so respondents could choose between

the traditional METT question (for the few government–owned protected areas) and a
new version (for community areas). Other adaptations included keeping the standard
threat classification (Salafsky et al., 2008) used in the METT but altering the wording to
make it clearer within the classification’s meaning.
A recognised weakness of the standard METT questionnaire is the lack of information

gathered about protected area values and outcomes. If the METT complements other
information or assessments this is not a problem, but given the serious paucity of
even basic information about most of the protected areas in PNG, it was considered
essential to boost the data collected about these aspects of effectiveness. The PNG
METT therefore added a section where people were asked to discuss and nominate the
primary values of their protected area, and then to use words or pictures to describe
these values or benefits. This is similar to questions asked in the METT modified for
use by the Ramsar Secretariat. Secondly, a checklist was added to help the participants
to consider all the possible benefits provided by the protected area. The assessment of
protected area outcomes was enhanced through the evaluation of the condition and
trend of the protected area values. Participants are asked to use the key values that they
listed in the first part of the workshop. The condition of these is then rated as poor to
very good, using the condition criteria developed by The Nature Conservancy and the
Conservation Measures Partnership (Parrish et al., 2003). The trend is then described as
improving, stable or deteriorating. Information sources and explanations are recorded
for any information provided. A final question was added to help begin the process of
strengthening management of the protected areas: ‘As the final task, I would like you
to think about all the values, threats and issues that have been raised and to list three
things that would help you to make your protected area better in the future.’
The PNG METT was developed through a staged process. A draft methodology was
devised and shared with staff of CEPA, UNDP and some civil society representatives
at a workshop in Port Moresby in April 2016. The methodology was then trialled
and adjusted in the field before being finalised. Although this iteration of PAME was
undertaken with external funding and with the assistance of consultants, PNG has an
excellent opportunity to ensure that regular PAME studies are undertaken to show the
changes and hopefully improvements in management over time. In the delivery of the
PNG METT, CEPA staff and UNDP staff were involved in training that incorporated both
facilitating and recording information. In this process they were mentored by the project
facilitators. This will enable CEPA staff to continue with the assessments in the future
and thus ensure the consistency, reliability and validity of the recorded information.
As PNG is still beginning the journey of developing an effective protected area system,
the PAME assessment is providing important baseline information and guiding future
developments across the protected area network.
This case study has been sourced from Leverington et al., 2016

© PETER CHADWICK / WWF
5. METT: PREPARING
THE GROUNDWORK
FOR PROTECTED AREA
STANDARDS
Until recently management effectiveness evaluations have provided the
main source of information available about the management of protected
areas. Tools like the METT provide valuable information on management
and, when used well, can help to plan adaptive management. However,
relying solely on these tools to ensure that a large percentage of the world
is well managed for conservation could be misleading. There is increasing
pressure for protected area standards and means of verification. In this
context, specific and detailed tools are needed which set the baseline
standard for effective management.
Photo: Site and species based standards are now being developed to further assess
protected area effectiveness
5.1. The move towards development of standards

Management effectiveness assessments identify a site’s management objectives and
assess strengths and weaknesses in management in terms of these objectives. While
they sometimes give generalised advice on best practice, they do not on the whole set
down firm standards against which management can be measured. Indeed, there was
for some time reluctance to do so, because of the huge variety of circumstances and
needs within protected areas. It was feared that quantitative standards would create
a straitjacket that would be difficult to apply in practice and could create unnecessary
expectations from those protected areas that did not fit standard approaches to
management.
IUCN started to investigate options for introducing some kind of certification system for
protected areas, which itself implied a set of standards (Dudley et al., 2003; Dudley et al,
2004b), and this possibility was also addressed by the IUCN Environmental Law Centre
(Dudley, 2004). These ideas were initially rejected by IUCN as impractical.
The ASEAN Regional Centre in the Philippines had commissioned competence

standards for protected area managers in the region (Appleton et al, 2003). Aimed
mainly at training centres, this did not set management standards for protected areas
but instead identified what managers would need to know to do their job effectively.
Pressure grew steadily to introduce some form of standards as a logical next step to
management effectiveness assessment and was included in the 2004 Programme of
Work on Protected Areas from the UN Convention on Biological Diversity: Activity 4.1.1
Collaborate with other Parties and relevant organizations, particularly IUCN, on the
development, testing, review and promotion of voluntary protected areas standards
and best practices on planning and management, governance and participation (CBD,
2004).
WWF responded in 2005 by commissioning a guidance note on minimum requirements

for protected area management, drawing on the earlier METT results (Dudley and
Stolton, 2005). This identified a series of key steps as minimum requirements needed for
effective management and committed to implementing these in key protected areas:
• Legal designation
• Demarcation of protected area boundaries
• Clear management objectives
• Operational plan
• Operational budget
• Monitoring plan
Whilst falling far short of standards in terms of defining what was required for each of
these steps, this guidance recognised the general need for minimum components of good
management to ensure success.
More recently, two initiatives (Conservation Assured and the Green List of Protected
and Conserved Areas) have developed and started to apply the idea of something
approaching a certification scheme for protected areas, although both approaches have
been wary of using this particular term (see sections 5.2 and 5.3). Both standards start
from an assessment (usually a self-assessment by park staff) of management effectiveness;
they then build on this through application of specific standards developed through a
peer-review process and an external assessment by local or international experts.

Box 2: PAME and standards

The key differences between PAME and standards are:
Assessment focus
• PAME assesses management against a site’s individual goals and objectives
• Standards evaluate a site’s management against peer reviewed best practices
Verification process
• Although processes vary, most PAME systems are self-assessments; where
they exist verification processes tend to be project based and do not involve
accreditation or certification
• Standards usually involve some kind of formal accreditation/certification
process with multiple steps to ensure compliance to the standards. Processes
are encouraged to be based on international best practices such as ISEAL’s
Principles for Credible and Effective Sustainability Standards Systems16
5.2. Conservation Assured

The Conservation Assured | Tiger Standards (CA|TS) project was launched by WWF
in 2011, in response to recognition that wild tigers were facing such a severe crisis that
unless secure populations could be secured in protected areas there was a real risk of
them becoming extinct in the wild (Walston et al, 2013), and that most protected areas
were not well enough managed to provide this security (Damania et al, 2008; Forrest et
al., 2011). CA|TS focuses on all actual or potential tiger reserves within the tiger range
countries with the intention of building capacity to manage tigers. Areas are first CA|TS
Registered, basically a sign of commitment, and if they eventually meet the CA|TS
standards become CA|TS Assured. Standards were first agreed in late 2013 and have
been reissued with minor changes on two occasions since (Conservation Assured, 2016).
Whilst WWF has driven this process forward, and provided most of the initial funding,
CA|TS is seen as a cooperative project with partners including the Global Tiger Forum,
Wildlife Institute of India and all the Tiger Range countries. Two protected areas have
been CA|TS approved (as of early 2016), an international executive committee exists,
a technical support group in partnership with key tiger conservation agencies is being
formalised and commitments to develop CA|TS have been made by 11 out of 13 tiger
range states (National Parks, Wildlife and Conservation Department, Thailand and
CA|TS, 2016).
The CA|TS concept is also being developed for other species. CA|TS standards consist
of seven sections or “pillars”; five relate to species protection in any protected area, with
an emphasis on high value species likely to attract poachers (Conservation Assured) and
two relate specifically to tigers and their prey (Tiger Standards). CA|TS is therefore a
modular system that can be applied to other species and for wider conservation impact
(Pasha et al., 2014), and the Zoological Society of London is already doing this for rhinos
as part of an initiative to build impact bonds as a way of drawing private finance into
conservation.
One of the Standards in CA|TS is to undertake PAME assessments on a regular basis;

the METT is usually the system applied, although in India this has been largely
replaced by a modified form of the METT designed explicitly for tiger reserves, known
as the MEETR (Mathur et al., 2014). The complementarity between the two systems is
reviewed in table 2.

Table 2: Attributes of CA|TS and METT
CA|TS METT
Scope Individual protected areas and conserved areas Individual protected

which have a focus on tiger conservation areas
Who assesses? Manager, independent reviewer and Manager and ideally
jurisdictional /national experts and International protected areas staff,
independent team (Peer review process) and other stakeholders
and rightsholders
Form of Standards and associated criteria for which proof Questionnaire
assessment of compliance is required
Objective Ensure standards for effective tiger protection Assess state of single
are in place at site and country level protected area
Evidence base Records, expert opinion and multi-stakeholder Records, expert
linkage / consultation opinion
5.3. Green List of Conserved and Protected Areas

The Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas (Green List) is an initiative of IUCN,
which aims to improve the effectiveness of protected areas through development of a
global standard for management. The Green List Standard has been developed by IUCN
with technical support from WCPA and a coalition of conservation professionals from
around the world with expertise in relevant thematic areas.
The Green List standard consists of four main components – 1) achieving conservation
outcomes through good governance, 2) sound planning and 3) design, and 4) effective
management. Each component has a number of criteria and indicators which emphasise
the importance of managing equitably, maintaining natural values and associated
cultural and spiritual values and achieving positive socio-economic outcomes. PAME
assessments are a major component of the Green List, both as providing an important
entry point for taking part in the initiative and as an indicator of good management.
Performance levels that represent sound management of protected and conserved areas
have been defined and candidate protected areas must meet these levels in order to
achieve “Green List” status.
The IUCN has established a strong governance framework for the Green List initiative
and a comprehensive assurance procedure to ensure transparency, rigor and credibility.

6. CONCLUSIONS
© CAT HOLLOWAY / WWF

This review has provided a chance to spend some time looking carefully
at the way that the METT has been used; from small beginnings into
a global tool. To some extent a victim of its own success, along with
the benefits there are some evident weaknesses and things that could
usefully be changed, improved, added to or explained more clearly. The
following section draws together some overall conclusions and makes
recommendations for future steps.
Photo: The assessment of management effectiveness relies on good

base-line data gathered from surveying and monitoring. Surveying coral
reefs in Fiji

6.1. Core findings and conclusions

The METT works well as a quick and simple way of collecting information about the
status and trends of management in protected areas, and it provides information that
can help drive improvements in management. For increasingly cash-strapped protected
area agencies, the METT is a cost-effective option that in addition does not make
unreasonable demands on staff time. But it is also open to deliberately distorting the
results and, much more commonly, to poor application (e.g. not reviewing the METT to
assess training/adaptation requirements before starting implementation, not completing
the narrative sections so reducing its ability to drive adaptive management or not
including a range of staff and stakeholders in the process etc) that reduces accuracy. This
handbook aims to improve the way in which the METT is applied and hence the
usefulness of the results to protected area management.
Given the qualitative approach and the reliance on individual judgement, the METT
is likely to be best at comparing performance in one site over time than at comparing
between different sites. But analysis of the global database shows that it can also provide
useful information about the general status of management effectiveness of protected
areas, as long as data are treated with the necessary caution. Overall usefulness of
the METT for institutions such as WWF is likely to increase as the total number of
assessments, and particularly the number of repeat assessments, continues to grow.
METT results have already helped to identify those management processes critical
to success, and in turn to set best practice standards for protected areas that reflect
the real experience of many thousand managers and rangers around the world, rather
than being based on a few case studies. The focus of protected area capacity building
is now moving beyond assessments towards the establishment of globally-accepted
standards and, increasingly, third-party verification that these standards are being
met. Conservation Assured | Tiger Standards (CA|TS) and the IUCN Green List of
Protected and Conserved Areas are two concrete examples. However, these standards
are predicated on the assumption that management effectiveness assessments are
being carried out as an essential first part of the assessment. As the favoured “first
assessment” system, use of the METT will spread further as these systems develop.
Many variations on the METT have also emerged over the last 15 years, as people
have modified the original questions and format to fit different biomes, management
approaches and national priorities. Along with modifications for freshwater and marine
protected areas, variations have been developed for community forest areas and some
countries wish to change the questions the better to fit national conditions. Some users
appear to need to make some modifications as part of the socialisation process of getting
used to and excited about application. Whether or not such changes are to be welcomed
depends to a large extent on whether the priority is for a comparable global dataset, or
for a plethora of systems that best fit national priorities. Attempts to reconcile these
two objectives include development of a global list of core indicators, which allow many
different PAME systems to be compiled with respect to all their critical data. As the
METT continues to be modified (even the GEF has made changes to the original) use of
the core indicators may be increasingly relevant for METT results as well.
6.2. Moving forward

The world is continuously changing; efforts to track progress in protected areas must
be aware of and reflect changes that influence management. Experience also shows
that further advice and capacity building could help improve the overall performance
of the METT. The following are some suggestions for a improving both the content and
application of the METT.

1. Extra questions: it is increasingly clear that the METT does not cover some
areas that are increasingly seen as critical for protected area performance. Whilst
recognising that the strength of the METT is largely in its brevity, there are
strong arguments for additional questions on climate change (including carbon
sequestration), transboundary conservation, social processes within and around the
site and a division of the outcome questions to separate conservation outcomes and
cultural/social outcomes (see section 4.3).
2. Clearer wording: there is always a temptation to revise constantly and this has
consciously been avoided with the METT in favour of constancy. But repeated
applications have identified some important ambiguities remaining in the 2007
version, which make it difficult for users to decide between some of the multiple
choice questions. The guidance offered in this handbook aims to help provided
clearer interpretation of the METT questions (see section 4).
3. Capacity building material: practical experience with the METT has shown
that additional tools can be helpful, such as PowerPoint presentations that can
be projected and filled in through discussion and consensus where multiple
stakeholders are involved in completing the METT. Making these materials more
generally available could help others in making the best use of the assessment.
Spending time training assessors, so that they fully understand the METT, will
also help to ensure better results; one efficient way of doing this is to have future
assessors take part in a METT assessment conducted by someone with experience
(see section 4.2.6).
4. A dedicated web site: with this in mind, there is a need for a METT website, to
include the definitive version of the assessment tool (different versions circulate),
translations, associated capacity building and presentation material, relevant
publications and also perhaps a chat room for people to swap experiences, ask
questions and make suggestions. The tool has grown considerably beyond the original
concept of those who developed it, and now needs back up resources to function as
effectively as possible.
5. Outcome assessment: the METT is not designed to be a comprehensive system

for assessing protected area outcomes (i.e., usually whether or not conservation
targets are being met). However, several users have matched the METT with other
systems for assessing outcomes, to provide a more complete overall assessment, or
have provided detailed advice on how to modify the METT (usually by adding an
additional section with measurable indicators) to address outcomes (see section
4.3.2). Specific advice on these approaches could widen the use, particularly when
linked with application of standards such as CA|TS.
6. Translation: the METT is already available in multiple languages (e.g., French,

Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Romanian and Bahasa Indonesian) but not all of these
are the most up to date version of the tracking tool, it is not clear if there has been
any verification or peer review of these translations to ensure their accuracy, and
there are probably slightly different versions being applied. Once a revised version
is complete, re-translations or updated translations into major languages will be
needed, particularly French, Spanish, Chinese and Arabic.
7. Data control: a measure of quality control is needed when METTs are completed,
particularly when implemented as part of an NGO, donor or government led project.
It is clear that many METTs are not being completed accurately and many are only
being partially completed. The better the process to implement the METT (see
section 4.2) the more accurate large datasets will be and the insights they can give to
PAME particularly when these data are being used in global studies.

© JAMES MORGAN / WWF-US
7. ADDENDUM: METT
ORIGINS, DIFFERENT
VERSIONS AND
IMPLEMENTATION
This final section provides a history of the development and use of the
METT. Section 7. 1 outlines the METT’s origins and evolution and section
7.2 provides details of a range of reports of the METT’s implementation
from individual countries to portfolios of protected areas. The METT has
also been adapted and used as the basis for a range of similar assessment
tools, as shown in 7.3. Finally, section 7.4 provides a list of countries which
have undertaken the METT as recorded on the METT database, including
those countries who have undertaken repeat assessments.
Photo: Thimpu River, Bhutan

7.1. A short history of the METT

The METT was developed in line with best practice guidance on PAME developed by
IUCN. Its history and development is outlined in the section below.
7.1.1. Management effectiveness of protected areas

Protected area managers have always been aware that they need to assess the results of
their management activities and judge whether they are achieving their objectives. Until
recently there was very little guidance available on how to do this. At the IVth IUCN
World Parks Congress in Caracas in 1992 the protected area community recommended
that IUCN develop a system for assessing protected area management effectiveness
(PAME). In response, IUCN created an international Task Force with broad regional
representation within its World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). After research,
field testing and consultation, in 2000 the Task Force published Evaluating
Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management of Protected Areas (Hockings
et al., 2000). Rather than suggesting one PAME system, the WCPA Framework provided
guidance to protected area specialists on both the structure of and process for
developing an evaluation, together with a checklist of issues that need to be measured. It
also includes guidance on indicators that should be considered in an evaluation, and
encouraged basic standards for assessment and reporting.
The WCPA Framework is made up of a range of elements and processes that can usefully
form the basis of any PAME system. It is based on the idea that an evaluation should
reflect three main assessment themes:
i. protected area/s design and planning issues;

ii. adequacy and appropriateness of management systems and processes; and
iii. delivery of protected area objectives including conservation of values
From these three themes the WCPA Framework identifies six key elements of protected
area management, which together provide the basis of a PAME assessment (see Figure
1). These six elements reflect the way protected areas are established and managed, i.e.
the management cycle.
The WCPA Framework suggests that systems for PAME should include all six elements as
they are complementary rather than alternative approaches to assessing management
effectiveness. Thus the assessment needs to be made in the context of the protected
Figure 1: The WCPA Context:

Framework for assessing
status and threats
of protected areas
Where are we now?
Outcomes Planning
What did Where do we
we achieve? want to be ?
Evaluation
Outputs
What were
the results?
Inputs
What do we need?
Processes
How do we go about it?

area, so assessments first need to gather data on issues relating to the area’s values,
threats and opportunities, stakeholders, and the management and political context.
Management starts with planning of strategies needed to fulfil the vision, goals and
objectives of protection and to reduce threats. To put these plans in place and meet
management objectives, managers need inputs (resources) of staff, money and
equipment. Management activities are implemented according to accepted processes
(i.e. best practices); which produce outputs by completing activities outlined in work
plans. The end result of management is the achievement of outcomes, i.e. reaching the
goals and objectives set for the biological conservation, economic development, social
sustainability or cultural heritage of the protected area.
7.1.2. World Bank Alliance

The World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use (‘the
Alliance’) was formed in April 1998, in response to the continued depletion of the
world’s forest biodiversity and of forest-based goods and services essential for
sustainable development. As part of its programme of work the Alliance set a target
relating to PAME: 50 million hectares of existing but highly threatened forest protected
areas to be secured under effective management by the year 2005 (Dudley and Stolton.
1999). To evaluate progress towards this target the Alliance sought to develop a site-level
Tracking Tool to facilitate reporting on PAME within WWF and World Bank projects;
the METT was developed from this concept of a PAME Tracking Tool.
7.1.3. Inspiration behind the METT

In November 2000 the Alliance elected to trial the “Scoring system for process and
output indicators”, Appendix II of the Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for
Assessing Management of Protected Areas. This appendix was based on several years
work carried out on Fraser Island World Heritage site, Australia (Hockings and Hobson,
2000). Although the “scorecard” only addressed the WCPA Framework categories of
process and output, it was felt that its 10 basic questions offered a simple option for
protected area managers to consider issues related to management effectiveness without
performing additional research. It was also thought to be broad and inclusive enough to
provide an adequate picture of the management status of a broad spectrum of protected
areas, and thus help the Alliance measure progress towards its target. The scorecard
was sent out to selected World Bank task managers who were requested to complete it
for protected areas over 20,000 ha in size. This exercise resulted in field tests in over
2,000,000 ha of forested protected areas in 16 sites at India, Indonesia, Philippines,
Romania and Vietnam.
Following the field testing phase the Alliance contracted the authors of the WCPA
Framework to provide two outputs:
i. A review on how the scorecard can be improved, with guidance on its scope and
limitations.
ii. Recommendations on how the WCPA Framework can be developed to:
a) Track progress on the Alliance’s target
b) Provide reliable information to field managers to enhance management of
biodiversity.
The review of the scorecard in the pilot sites, highlighted issues related to the trade-off
between the brevity of the 10 question scorecard and the greater detail which would
provide more complete basis for both the assessment and adaptation of protected
area management. WWF felt that the existing Appendix II scorecard did not go far
enough in assessing site performance and proposed the development of a more detailed
alternative, which was presented to the Alliance in 2002. However, World Bank staff
argued strongly that the proposal was too time-consuming to be used by their project

executants. A compromise was agreed whereby the format of the original scorecard was
maintained with a few extra questions and a data section added to reflect other elements
in the framework (Stolton et al, 2002b).
As a result the publication Reporting Progress on Management Effectiveness in

Protected Areas. A simple site-level tracking tool developed for the World Bank and
WWF (Stolton et al, 2002a) was published; the tool which subsequently became known
as the METT.
As the title implies, the primary aim of the METT is to supply consistent data about the
progress of protected area management over time. The purposes of the tool are detailed
in the introduction of the 2002 and 2007 publications (Stolton et al, 2002a), which
states that the METT was developed as a response to eight requirements:
i. Capable of providing a harmonised reporting system for protected area assessment

within both the World Bank and WWF
ii. Suitable for replication
iii. Able to supply consistent data to allow tracking of progress over time
iv. Relatively quick and easy to complete by protected area staff
v. Capable of providing a “score” if required
vi. Based around a system that provides four alternative text answers to each question,
thereby strengthening the scoring system
vii. Easily understood by non-specialists
viii. Nested within existing reporting systems to avoid duplication of effort.
The METT is ideally an “entry tool” into the whole concept and practice of PAME. There
are now a multitude of tools (both generic and those developed for specific protected
area systems or categories) (Leverington et al., 2010b) and the revised WCPA PAME
Framework (Hockings et al, 2006) provides detailed guidance on how to carry out
PAME evaluation and reviews many of the tools available.
Box 3: The METT in brief

The METT consists of two main sections.
Datasheets that collect key information on the protected area, its characteristics,
threats and management objectives and details of who carried out the assessment
Assessment form that provides a composite measurement across 30 parameters,

integrating all six components of the WCPA Framework and is designed around
a questionnaire with four alternative responses, each with an associated score
ranging between 0 (poor) to 3 (excellent). Each question also has data fields to
include notes about the answers (with justification if possible) and steps to be
taken to improve management if necessary.
Click here to download the 2007 version of the METT17

7.1.4. 2005 and 2007 Revision

The wide uptake of the 2002 version of the METT (known as METT 1) and analysis of
the results from implementation by WWF (e.g. Dudley et al., 2004 – see section 7.2) led
to some suggestions for improvement. The 2005 version (known as METT 2) included
a standardised list of threats based on an early iteration of the “unified classifications
of threats” developed by the Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) (Salafsky et
al., 2008). From this assessors were asked to choose the two most important threats
facing the management of the protected area. A list of management activities was also
included, again from which assessors were asked to choose the two most important; this
later innovation was only included in this version of the METT (although has been used
in other adaptations, e.g. in Bhutan).
WWF funded a more detailed review and revision of the METT in 2007 based on
implementation experience, best practices and the need to reflect the growing interest
and implementation of the METT beyond the original aims of the Alliance’s protected
forest targets. This version, known as METT 3, was published in 2007 (Stolton et al., 2007).
The revisions in the 2007 version included:
• Addition of a standardised threat assessment: In the 2002 version of the METT

respondents were simply asked to list threats, which meant that slight changes
of wording made analysis difficult and that some important threats (e.g. invasive
species, fire and human-wildlife conflict) were often not mentioned (Dudley et al.,
2004 and 2007). The 2005 edition used the typology of threats developed by CMP,
which helped to standardise responses (and re-categorised the 2004 data using
this system) but restricted responses to two major threats. Drawing on both these
experiences, the CMP list was modified and revised and a more detailed assessment
system was introduced, where all threats were assessed.
• Scoring disclaimer: The review of results between 2002 and 2006 found that the
concerns about using the METT to calculate an overall PAME score were slightly
allayed and although a note remained in subsequent version of the METT concerning
the development of an overall score due to the lack of weighting of questions (see box
4 for further discussion of scoring), the disclaimer against scoring was removed. This
was due to results showing that most individual questions correlated fairly highly
with the total score, the exceptions being those relating to legal status, protected area
design, local communities and indigenous people. This meant that the total score
apparently correlated reasonably well with most individual scores and thus could
serve as a reasonably good indicator of overall management effectiveness (Dudley
et al., 2004 and 2007). However, as noted before, in the METT guidance reporting
scores for individual elements of the WCPA Framework is likely to provide a much
better indication of effectiveness than an overall score. (This view was supported
in a paper by Nolte and Agrawal (2012) where although composite METT scores
were not significantly related to the effectiveness of protected areas in reducing
fire occurrence – which was used as a proxy for effectiveness – several individual
indicators in the METT were related. These indicators included cooperation with
neighbouring official and commercial land; research activities; and access control, all
of which would seem to have a direct impact on fire. They suggest that links between
METT scores and outcomes may be stronger than the researchers of the paper
suggest, but this depends on the other indicators chosen to indicate effectiveness).
• Explanation: A seemingly very simple revision was the change of the column
heading of “comments” to “comments/explanation” in the first of two narrative
columns in the multiple choice element of the METT. This change was however the
first step toward the type of evidence based verification approach currently being
developed in protected area management standards such as Conservation Assured |
Tiger Standards and the Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas (see sections
5.2 and 5.3). As the guidance notes to the METT explain, this box “allows for

qualitative judgements to be explained in more detail. This could range from local
staff knowledge (in many cases, staff knowledge will be the most informed and
reliable source of knowledge), a reference document, monitoring results or external
studies and assessments – the point being to give anyone reading the report an idea
of why the assessment was made”.
• Wider focus: The revision made the METT less narrowly orientated towards forest
protected areas and thus suitable for use in all protected areas including wetlands
and marine. This wider focus also allowed for the tool to be used beyond government
protected areas, for example, in village forest reserves in Tanzania (Malugu et al.,
2008; Knights et al., 2014).
Box 4: The METT score

Guidance on the METT use has always noted that overall scores obtained from
the tool should be treated with caution as the scoring system is not weighted, and
clearly some questions are more crucial to the effectiveness of a protected area
than others. Other concerns about scoring included:
• That the assessment be seen by protected area staff as a judgement rather than
a management tool
• Recognition of the difficulty in comparing between protected areas when

reporting is done by different people (who may have very different attitudes
to and responses toward self-assessment for instance) and from different
protected area management types, countries, governance, area etc where
perceptions of the baseline of success and failure may be very different.
Thus the ability for data from simple PAME systems like the METT, which focus
on the practice of management, to indicate or correlate with overall biodiversity
outcomes is limited (Carranza et al., 2014) and using the overall METT score
to infer conservation outcomes is likely misleading, considering only one of the
questions actually address conservation outcomes (Zimsky et al., 2010). Ideally,
only where the METT is used as part of a fully planned PAME implementation
system and has been explained, adapted and results verified (see section 3.2),
should the results be used to infer conservation outcomes.

7.2. Examples of studies of METT results

Many projects have written up the results of METT implementation. These reports
have been used throughout this report and provide a rich vien of information for those
planning to use or study the METT. A sample of these reports is provided below.
Organisation/ Comments Source (in date order)

country
WWF The first comprehensive analysis of METT results in 200 forest Dudley et al., 2004
protected areas in 37 countries (see section 7.2).
WCS Assessment of 10 protected areas in the Eastern Steppe of Heffernan et al, 2005
Mongolia in 2004.
WWF Second assessment in 331 protected areas in 51 countries, Dudley et al., 2007
including 79 repeat assessments (see section 7.2 for details).
Zambia Report of use in 19 National Parks. Mwima, 2007
IUCN Programme A multi-year PAME implementation including METTs in: Bissau 2007 – 2011 (see: papaco.
on African Protected Guinea (1); Burkina Faso (1); Burundi (7); Cameroon (8); Central org/286-2/)
Areas and Conservation African Republic (2); Chad (2); DRC (19); Equatorial Guinea (1);
(PAPACO) Gabon (3); Ghana (5); Guinea (10); Mali (1); Mauritania (2); Niger
(6); Republic of Congo (10); Togo (2).
China Assessment of 535 nature reserves . Quan et al., 2009
Armenia Used in Forest Sanctuaries as part of the improving Forest Law Gevorgyan and Abovyan,
Enforcement and Governance in the European Neighbourhood 2010
Policy East Countries and Russia – ENPI FLEG Program.
WWF Assessment as part of the Rwenzori Mountains Conservation and Johns, 2012
Environmental Management Project (RMCEMP).
GEF Fifth Overall Performance Study (OPS-5) reviewed 1,865 protected Swartzendruber, 2013
areas across 251 projects, of which 1,209 (65%) submitted METT
assessments.
Philippines Used in 7 marine protected areas. Dizon et al., 2013
ASEAN Heritage Parks Used in 17 AHPs. Inciong et al., 2013
(AHPs)
Birdlife Assessment 397 forest sites within the Eastern Arc Mountains and Gereau, et al., 2014
Coastal Forests (EACF) between 2004 and 2012.
Kenya, Tanzania and Analysis of 473 sites which had used the METT in this region Knights et al., 2014 (see also
Mozambique coastal areas of Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique. Burgess et al., 2015)
Bhutan Use in all protected areas which cover just over 50% of the country. Wildlife Conservation
Division and Equilibrium
Research, 2015 and 2016
Indonesia The METT has been adopted as the national assessment system Kementerian Lingkungan
for protected areas and is being widely applied. Training is being Hidup dan Kehutanan, 2015
given to managers and a national target has been adopted to lift
250 protected areas to effective management (i.e. with a score
of at least 70%) by 2020. The METT has been translated into
Indonesian and extensive guidance on application and scoring has
been provided.
GEF Review of GEF use in nearly 2,000 protected areas including field GEF, 2015
visits to 47 sites.

7.3. METT Adaptations

Many governments and organisations have adapted the METT for their own use.
Again these adaptations can provide inspiration and insights for future implementions
of the tool.
Organisation/ Comments Source

country
GEF The GEF has developed several version of the METT for tracking www.thegef.org/gef/BD_
its biodiversity investments (see box 1). tracking_tool
Critical Ecosystem Based on the structure of the METT, the CEPF tracking tool aims www.cepf.net/resources/
Partnership Fund (CEPF) to monitor civil society organisations' capacity to effectively plan, publications/Pages/
implement and evaluate actions for biodiversity conservation. monitoring_and_evaluation.
aspx
Carpathian Countries The CCPAMETT was an online tool developed to be used on an www.ccibis.org/carpathian-
Protected Areas annual basis. The tool was an output of the Protected Areas for values/97-protected-areas-in-
Management a Living Planet Project carried out by WWF Danube-Carpathian the-carpathians
Effectiveness Tracking Programme together with partners from the regional and local
Tool (CCPAMETT) level and supported by the Swiss MAVA Foundation (2007-2011).
Versions were available in English, Czech, Hungarian, Polish,
Romanian, Serbian, Slovakian, Ukrainian, but all weblinks to the
CCPAMETT seem to be broken.
The METT was adapted for use in 230 protected areas in South Cowan et al., 2010; www.
Africa. The questions relating to the indicators have been sanparks.org/about/
rephrased to better reflect South African circumstances and news/?id=56647; SEF. 2012;
legislation. Hockings et al., 2015
The METT was adapted for use in 230 protected areas in South Cowan et al., 2010; www.
Africa. The questions relating to the indicators have been sanparks.org/about/
METT – South Africa The METT was adapted for use in 230 protected areas in South Cowan et al., 2010; www.
(METT-SA) Africa. The questions relating to the indicators have been sanparks.org/about/
NAMETT The METT adapted for use in Namibia was implemented in 20 MET, 2014
protected areas in 2004, 2009 and 2011.
WB/WWF Biofuels Developed to provide an indication of whether a proposed biofuel World Bank/World Wildlife
Environmental project is likely to have a (net) positive or negative impact on the Fund, 2008; McLaughlin,
Sustainability Scorecard environment. There is no evidence that the tool has been used. 2008; Ismail, et al. 2011.
Ramsar Site Management Resolution XII.15 of the 12th Conference of Parties (COP12) to the Ramsar, 2015.
Effectiveness Tracking Ramsar Convention formally approved the R-METT for evaluating
Tool (R-METT) and ensuring the effective management and conservation of
Ramsar Sites.
Indian MEETR The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), a statutory Mathur et al., 2014
body under the Indian Ministry of Environment, Forests and
Climate Change, and the Wildlife Institute of India have been
carrying out assessment of Tiger Reserves in India since 2006.
From 2011 an assessment system which shares many elements
with the METT has been used.
The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), a statutory Mathur et al., 2014
body under the Indian Ministry of Environment, Forests and
Climate Change, and the Wildlife Institute of India have been
carrying out assessment of Tiger Reserves in India since 2006.
From 2011 an assessment system which shares many elements
with the METT has been used.
Bhutan METT + The basic METT with additional guidance and questions including Dudley et al., 2016
a more detailed threat assessment. Used in all protected areas in
Bhutan in 2015 and 2016.
Conservation A slight adaptation of WWF’s original METT, prepared by CI staff Pauquet, 2005.
International (CI) CI- in charge of developing a site-monitoring methodology within the
METT organization’s Monitoring Outcomes framework.
Arabian Peninsula An adaptation was used in 7 protected areas in the peninsula. Anon, 2009.

Organisation/ Comments Source

country
Score Card to Assess Multiple use, for example in 172 MPAs in the Persian or Arabian Staub and Hatziolos, 2004
Progress in Achieving Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the south eastern coasts of Oman
Management located in the Arabian Sea (Van Lavieren and Klaus, 2013).
Effectiveness Goals for
Marine Protected Areas
A version adapted for use on marine protected areas. Day and Laffoley, 2006
Self-assessment checklist A version adapted for use on marine protected areas. Day and Laffoley, 2006
for building networks of
MPAs
Scorecard for A Chinese version of the METT. Authors have version but
management capacity and current status unclear
effectiveness assessment
for forest reserves in
China
Reflective Co-assessment An adaptation which focuses on cooperative behaviour as Roux et al. 2011.
Scorecard an essential precondition for effective management and that
encourages reflective co-assessment of cooperative relationships.
ASEAN Heritage Parks An adaption for Asia, which included additional output indicators Inciong et al., 2013
related to the success of the protected area in reducing or
combating illegal activities and success in providing ecosystem
services. A selection of protected areas were visited as part of a
verification process. The scoring system was also adapted.
Enhanced METT Used in 61 protected areas in the Philippines. The enhanced Guiang and Braganza, 2014
METT focussed primarily on process, introducing key informant
interviews, focus group discussions, validation meetings, and
feedback discussions with local stakeholders, summary and
analyses by regional cluster groups followed by validation and
consultation with the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, local government units, and civil society organizations.
Papua New Guinea (PNG An adaptation to suit PNG (see case study). Leverington et al., 2016
METT)
METTPAZ: Management Adaptations include a score for the threat assessment. The results Mwima, 2007
Effectiveness Tracking of the assessments using the METTPAZ were studied by the
Tool for Protected Areas GEF to assess whether improved METT scores correlated with
managed by the Zambia improvements in biodiversity outcomes (Zimsky et al., 2010).
Wildlife Authority

7.4. Countries which have implemented the METT

The list below contains the sites for which METT data has been entered into the
METT database (see section 2.4) and which are listed in the WDPA, it is therefore
not an exhaustive list. The information on area is based on the reported area in the
assessments, and can thus vary from that on the WDPA. The GD-PAME and METT
database and the data they contain were gathered together with protected area managers
globally and collated under the auspices of the IUCN Management Effectiveness Task
Force, working together with Universities of Queensland, Oxford and Copenhagen,
UNEP-WCMC and with financial assistance from various donors, including WWF and
the GEF.
Table 3: All sites (most recent assessment only)
No. of No. of
Country sites Area (ha) Country sites Area (ha)
Albania 4 33,042 Egypt 8 1,855,700
Algeria 7 28,085,550 El Salvador 16 124,170
Angola 4 3,364,000 Estonia 26 209,180
Argentina 47 6,107,648 Ethiopia 14 963,700
Armenia 35 169,780 Federated States of Micronesia 2
Azerbaijan 7 218,390 Fiji 5 46,702
Bahamas 26 256,152 Finland 1 27,000
Belarus 11 344,940 French Guyana 1 2,464
Belize 29 562,469 French Polynesia 2
Benin 13 6,239,105 Gabon 12 4,836,064
Bhutan1 8 4,008,229 Gambia 2 12,138
Bolivia 6 5,183,300 Georgia 8 328,235
Bosnia and Herzegovina 6 51,747 Ghana 8 399,562
Botswana 5 2,254,539 Greece 2 63,700
Brazil 110 41,920,122 Grenada 3 160
Bulgaria 4 104,386 Guatemala 16 2,132,848
Burkina Faso 7 978,145 Guinea 4 260,201
Burundi 3 93,401 Guinea-Bissau 10 801,502
Cambodia 13 1,274,342 Haiti 3 34,000
Cameroon 20 3,327,333 Honduras 15 2,114,575
Cape Verde 12 135,342 India 14 710,940
Central African Republic 5 2,530,200 Indonesia2 22 9,719,348
Chile 54 4,418,618 Iran, Islamic Rep. 4 584,380
China 116 32,633,300 Italy 14 82,352
Colombia 20 8,661,598 Jamaica 34 530,514
Congo, Dem. Rep. 21 12,916,550 Jordan 8 376,969
Congo, Rep. 7 4,141,676 Kazakhstan 19 6,526,202
Costa Rica 36 1,597,068 Kenya 54 755,748
Cote d’Ivoire 9 1,706,040 Kyrgyzstan 2 336,118
Czech Republic 3 256,500 Lao PDR 8 1,438,743
Djibouti 2 12,500 Latvia 6 524,192
Dominican Republic 16 533,977 Lebanon 5 103,390
Ecuador 19 1,650,248 Lesotho 3 14,047

No. of No. of
Country sites Area (ha) Country sites Area (ha)
Liberia 4 1,638,942 Syria 6 75,516
Libya 2 83 Tajikistan 3 25,139
Lithuania 8 138,507 Tanzania 430 40,157,200
Macedonia FYR 6 124,934 Thailand 10 1,073,995
Madagascar 31 3,083,804 Togo 7 423,170
Malawi 10 2,209,500 Tunisia 8 216,168
Malaysia 17 2,000,217 Turkey 15 1,337,680
Mali 5 215,619 Turkmenistan 9 1,902,320
Mauritania 1 16,000 Uganda 14 596,759
Mauritius 25 12,206 Ukraine 5 114,750
Mexico 22 4,667,166 Uruguay 23 283,974
Moldova 13 225,348 Uzbekistan 10 266,458
Mongolia 23 11,971,084 Vanuatu 7 35,161
Montenegro 5 125,695 Venezuela 14 4,103,882
Morocco 5 283,801 Vietnam 50 552,262
Mozambique 19 9,978,648 Zambia 17 7,113,200
Namibia 24 7,539,684 Zimbabwe 1
Nepal 13 9,337,970 Grand Total 2506 427,370,966
Nicaragua 33 2,480,520
Niger 8 9,525,885
Nigeria 3 410,100
Niue 3 6,329
Pakistan 4 1,835,245
Palau 1
Panama 20 1,970,431
Papua New Guinea 7 2,425,599
Paraguay 6 181,392
peru 27 9,814,704
Philippines 26 1,118,662
Poland 2 39,704
Romania 23 1,025,422
Russian Federation 125 53,613,257
Rwanda 2 117,300
Samoa 1 45,692
Senegal 8 184,107
Serbia 23 335,856
Seychelles 4 44,157
Sierra Leone 6 497,373
Slovakia 5 106,853
Solomon Islands 2 270,000
South Africa 248 1,530,573 1. A ll protected areas in Bhutan have now completed the
Bhutan METT+, but the data has not been loaded onto the
Sudan 4 14,000,000 METT database yet.
Suriname 16 2,221,400 2. In 2015 Indonesa assessed 283 terrestrial and marine
protected areas, but this data has not been added to the
Sweden 1 38,483 database yet.

Table 4: Sites assessed more than once
Assessments
Assessments
No. of sites
No. of sites
(including
(including
Area (ha)
Area (ha)
repeats)
repeats)
Country
Country
No of
No of
Albania 2 7,900 4 Guinea 1 145,200 2
Argentina 12 229,065 25 Guinea-Bissau 5 482,502 20
Armenia 32 169,662 75 Honduras 15 2,114,575 40
Bahamas 3 78,229 8 India 8 477,900 38
Belarus 4 135,503 12 Indonesia 17 6,838,937 38
Belize 29 562,469 70 Iran, Islamic Rep. 4 584,380 10
Benin 4 5,755,586 9 Jamaica 2 194,564 7
Bhutan1 1 135,129 2 Jordan 6 256,789 18
Bolivia 1 747,000 2 Kazakhstan 8 1,498,337 28
Bosnia and Kenya 47 547,221 116
Herzegovina 5 31,947 10
Lao PDR 5 701,163 11
Botswana 1 2
Latvia 1 457,000 3
Brazil 43 20,364,494 93
Lebanon 3 59,328 6
Bulgaria 2 31,856 4
Liberia 1 180,400 2
Burkina Faso 1 818,046 2
Libya 1 2
Cambodia 9 872,401 25
Lithuania 5 92,216 15
Cameroon 14 3,023,833 66
Macedonia FYR 2 8,172 5
Cape Verde 8 119,478 18
Madagascar 10 631,797 32
Central African
Republic 1 464,400 3 Malaysia 9 174,513 27
Chile 46 4,227,327 105 Mauritius 1 4,300 2
China 24 1,738,660 69 Mexico 3 1,287,309 6
Colombia 1 1,100 3 Moldova 5 78,542 10
Congo, Dem. Rep. 5 6,250,000 16 Mongolia 12 8,044,680 25
Congo, Rep. 4 3,640,950 12 Montenegro 3 45,695 6
Costa Rica 27 1,166,779 62 Mozambique 4 2,134,300 11
Cote d’Ivoire 1 454,000 2 Namibia 14 6,699,553 42
Czech Republic 2 187,500 6 Nepal 9 8,646,548 25
Dominican Republic 7 262,722 16 Nicaragua 21 2,480,006 43
Ecuador 4 323,850 8 Pakistan 1 1,800,000 3
Egypt 1 435,000 2 Palau 1 2
Ethiopia 2 222,000 4 Panama 6 711,642 21
Federated States of Paraguay 3 42,000 6

Micronesia 2 4 Peru 12 4,543,749 29
Fiji 2 4 Poland 1 10,502 2
French Polynesia 2 4 Romania 22 1,016,266 51
Gabon 7 2,502,060 28 Russian Federation 107 47,612,667 265
Gambia 2 12,138 5 Serbia 18 281,142 36
Georgia 5 308,788 13 Sierra Leone 2 75,000 4
Grenada 2 90 4 Slovakia 3 309 10
Guatemala 2 1,145 4 South Africa 39 1,103,396 112

Assessments
No. of sites
(including
Area (ha)
repeats)
Country
No of
Syria 2 33,994 4
Tajikistan 3 25,139 8
Tanzania 107 37,111,066 322
Togo 2 317,980 4
Tunisia 2 25,200 4
Turkey 2 83,899 4
Turkmenistan 7 976,117 22
Uganda 2 49,700 8
Ukraine 3 110,623 8
Uruguay 20 224,232 60
Uzbekistan 9 266,458 29
Vietnam 31 359,615 91
Zambia 14 2,770,200 70
Grand Total 961 199,697,930 2566
* Where area information has not been recorded no data was

been provided.
1. Four sites have now undertaken repeat assessments using

the Bhutan METT+ but the data has not been uploaded to
the METT database.

References and notes

Anon. 2009. Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool. Wildlife Middle East News, 4.1 [see: www.wmenews.com/supporting/
Conservation_workshop.pdf1294666102.pdf]
Appleton, M., Texon, G.I. and M.T. Uriarte. 2003. Competence Standards for Protected Area Jobs in South East Asia. ASEAN
Regional Centre, Manila, Philippines.
Badman, T., Bomhard, B., Fincke, A., Langley, J., Rosabal, P. and D. Sheppard. 2008. Outstanding universal value: Standards
for natural world heritage. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 52pp.
Belle, E., Stolton, S., Dudley, N., Hockings, M. and N.D. Burgess. 2012. Protected Area Management Effectiveness: A regional
framework and additional METT module for monitoring the effects of climate change. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
Belokurov, A., Besançon, C., Pavese, H., Burgess, N.D., Dudley, N., Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Leverington, F., MacKinnon, K.
and T. Whitten, 2009. New resources for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas. Oryx, 43 1: 14-14.
doi:10.1017/S0030605308431046.
Beltrán, J. (ed.) 2000. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Case Studies. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
Biggs, H.C., Breen, C., Slotow, R., Freitag, S. and M. Hockings. 2011. How assessment and reflection relate to more effective
learning in adaptive management. Koedoe 53(2), Art. #1001, 13 pages. doi:10.4102/koedoe.v53i2.1001.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A. and G. Oviedo. 2004. Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards
Equity and Enhanced Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Burgess, N.D., Danks, F.S., Newham, R., Franks, P. and D. Roe. 2014. Towards Equitably Managed Protected Areas: A review
of synergies between Protected Area Management Effectiveness and Social or Governance Assessment. IIED Discussion
Paper. IIED, London.
Burgess, N.D, Arnell, A., Shennan-Farpon, Y., Newham, R., Sand Jørgensen, K. and J. Geldmann. 2015. Baseline management
effectiveness in the CEPF Eastern Afromontane Hotspot Region, United Nations Environment Programme
Carbutt, C. and P.S. Goodman. 2013. How objective are protected area management effectiveness assessments? A case study
from the iSimangaliso Wetland Park, Koedoe 55(1), Art. #1110, 8 pages. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4102/koedoe.v55i1.1110
Carranza, T., Manica, A., Kapos, V. and A. Balmford. 2014. Mismatches between conservation outcomes and management
evaluation in protected areas: A case study in the Brazilian Cerrado. Biological Conservation 173 (2014) 10–16
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2004. Programme of Work on Protected Areas, SCBD, Montreal.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010. Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 - COP 10, decision X/2. Montreal,
Canada: Convention on Biological Diversity.
CEPF. 2012. CEPF Monitoring Framework: Approved June 2012. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Washington DC.
Coad, L., Leverington, F., Knights, K., Geldmann, J., Eassom, A., Kapos, V., Kingston, N., de Lima, M., Zamora, C., Cuardros, I.,
Nolte, C., Burgess, N.D. and M. Hockings. 2015. Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: current and
future use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370: 20140281.
Conservation Assured. 2016. CA|TS Manual Version 1.3. February 2016, Conservation Assured, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
Cook, C.N., Carter, R.W. and M. Hockings. 2014. Measuring the accuracy of management effectiveness evaluations of protected
areas, Journal of Environmental Management 139: 164-171.
Cook, C.N. and M. Hockings. 2011. Opportunities for improving the rigor of management effectiveness evaluations in protected
areas. Conserv. Lett. 4, 372–382.
Cook, C.N., Hockings, M. and R.W. Carter. 2009. Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management
decisions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 181–186.
Cowan, G.I., Mpongoma, N. and P. Britton (eds.). 2010. Management effectiveness of South Africa’s protected areas.
Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.
Damania, R., Seidensticker, V., Whitten, T., Sethi, G., Mackinnon, K., Kiss, A. and A. Kushlin. 2008. A Future for Wild Tigers,
World Bank, Washington DC.
Day, J.C. and D. Laffoley. 2006. Self-assessment checklist for building networks of MPAs. WCPA IUCN. [Download from: www.
protectplanetocean.org/resources/docs/Self_assessment_check_list_HOTLINK_egs__Mar07final.pdf]
Dudley, N. (ed.) 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x + 86pp.
WITH Stolton, S., P. Shadie and Dudley, N. 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.
Dudley, N., Hockings, M. and S. Stolton. 2003. Protection Assured: Guaranteeing the effective management of the world’s
protected areas – a review of options, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
Dudley, N. 2004. Protected areas and certification. In Scanlon, J. and F. Burhenne-Guilmin. (eds.) International Environmental
Governance: An international regime for protected areas. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper number 49. IUCN,
Bonn, Germany.
Dudley, N., Belokurov, A., Borodin, O., Higgins-Zogib, L., Hockings, H., Lacerda, L. and S. Stolton. 2004. Are protected areas
working? An analysis of forest protected areas by WWF, WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
Dudley, N., Belokurov, A., Borodin, O., Higgins-Zogib, L. Hockings, M., Lacerda, L. and S. Stolton. 2004a. Are protected areas
working? WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
Dudley, N., Hockings, M. and S. Stolton. 2004b. Options for guaranteeing the effective management of the world’s protected
areas. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 6 (2): 131-142.
Dudley, N. and S. Stolton. 1999. Threats to Forest Protected Areas: Summary of a survey of 10
countries; WWF/World Bank Alliance in association with the IUCN WCPA, IUCN, Switzerland.
Dudley, N. and S. Stolton. 2005. Improving management effectiveness of protected areas: minimum requirements for
protected area management. Forests for Life protected area initiative guidance note. WWF International, Gland,
Switzerland.

Dudley, N., Belokurov, A., Higgins-Zogib, L., Hockings, M., Stolton, S. and N. Burgess. 2007. Tracking progress in managing
protected areas around the world. An analysis of two applications of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
developed by WWF and the World Bank, WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
Dudley, N., Lham, D., Stolton, S., Wangchuk, S. and S. Wangchuk. 2016. Bhutan Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool Plus.
Final Version 2016. Wildlife Conservation Division and Equilibrium Research, Thimphu, Bhutan and Bristol, UK.
Dizon, E.C., Geronimo, R.C. and R. Quicho Jr. 2013. Benchmarking the management effectiveness of nationally-managed
marine protected areas in the Philippines and policy recommendations. Final Report for USAID Coral Triangle Support
Partnership (CTSP) and Conservation International – Philippines. September 2013.
Emerton, L., Bishop, J. and L. Thomas. 2006. Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas: A global review of challenges and
options. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Evans, B. 2014. Mainstreaming the METT Powerpoint Presentation. [download at: www.conservationmeasures.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/4/2014/10/g-METT_CMP_10.8.2014.pptx]
Forrest, J. L., Bomhard, B., Budiman, A., Coad, L., Cox, N., Dinerstein, E., Hammer, D., Huang, C., Huy, K., Kraft, R., Lysenko,
I. and W. Magrath. 2011. Single-species conservation in a multiple-use landscape: current protection of the tiger range.
Animal Conservation 284:14, 283–294.
GEF. 2015. Impact Evaluation of GEF Support to Protected Areas and Protected Area Systems. GEF/ME/C.49/Inf.02 October
06, 2015. GEF, Washington, D.C.
Geldmann, J., Coad, L., Barne, M., Craigie, I.D., Hockings, M., Knights, K., Leverington, F., Cuadros, I.C., Zamora, C., Woodley,
S. and N.D. Burgess. 2015. Changes in protected area management effectiveness over time: A global analysis, Biological
Conservation 191 (2015) 692–699.
Gereau, R.E., Kariuki, M., Ndang’ang’a, P.K., Werema, C. and P. Muoria. 2014. Biodiversity Status and Trends Report for the
Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Kenya and Tanzania Region, 2008 – 2013, Birdlife International, Africa
Partnership Secretariat, Nairobi, Kenya.
Gevorgyan, A. and P. Abovyan. 2010. Assessment of Management Effectiveness and Law Enforcement in Forest Sanctuaries in
Armenia. Draft Report
Guiang, E.S. and G.C. Braganza. 2014. National Management Effectiveness and Capacity Assessment of Protected Areas in the
Philippines, GIZ, Bonn, Germany.
Heffernan, D.E., Zahler, P., Merkel, J., Heffernan, C.A. and C. Jargalsaikhan. 2005. An Assessment of the Protected Areas of the
Eastern Steppe of Mongolia. Mongolian Journal of Biological Sciences 2005 Vol. 3(1): 25-29.
Henschel, P., Coad, L., Burton, C., Chataigner, B., Dunn A, MacDonald, D., Saidu, Y., and L.T.B. Hunter. 2014. The Lion in West
Africa Is Critically Endangered. PLoS ONE 9(1): e83500. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083500.
Higgins-Zogib, L. and K. MacKinnon. 2006. World Bank/WWF Alliance Tracking Tool: Reporting conservation progress at
protected area sites, in Hockings, M., S. Stolton, F. Leverington, N. Dudley and J. Corrau. 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness:
A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas, 2nd edition, IUCN WCPA and University of
Queensland, Gland Switzerland and Brisbane Australia.
Hockings, M. and R. Hobson. 2000. Fraser Island World Heritage Area Monitoring and Management Effectiveness Project
Report. University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Hockings, M., James, R., Stolton, S., Dudley, N., Mathur, V., Makombo, J., Courrau, J. and J. Parrish. 2008. Enhancing our
Heritage Toolkit: Assessing management effectiveness of natural World Heritage sites. World Heritage Paper 23, UNESCO,
Paris.
Hocking, M., Stolton, S. and N. Dudley. 2000. Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing the Management of
Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. and J. Corrau. 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing
management effectiveness of protected areas, 2nd edition, IUCN WCPA and University of Queensland, Gland Switzerland
and Brisbane Australia.
Hockings, M., Leverington, F. and C. Cook. 2015. Protected area management effectiveness, in G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, A.
Kothari, S. Feary and I. Pulsford (eds) Protected Area Governance and Management, pp. 889–928, ANU Press, Canberra.
Inciong, R.A., Pantastico, A.R. Uriarte, M.T. and J.F. Goloyugo. 2013. Management Effectiveness of Asean Heritage Parks: A
Study Report. GIZ and ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity, Laguna, Philippines.
IUCN, World Bank, WWF. 1999. Threats to forest protected areas: summary of a survey of ten countries, Gland, Switzerland
and Washington DC.
Independent State of Papua New Guinea. 2014. Papua New Guinea Policy on Protected Areas, Waigani, National Capital
District, Papua New Guinea.
Ismail, M., Rossi, A. and N. Geiger. 2011. A Compilation of Bioenergy Sustainability Initiatives: Update. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO).
Johns, A.G. 2012. Final Evaluation Report: Rwenzori Mountains Conservation and Environmental Management Project,
Uganda Phase II (2010-2012), WWF Uganda Country Office, Kampala, Uganda and WWF Norway, Oslo.
Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan.2015. Pedoman Penilaian: Efektivitas Pengelolaan Kawasan Konservasi di
Indonesia (Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool). Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutana, Jakarta, Indonesia
[download at: http://ksdae.menlhk.go.id/assets/publikasi/BUKU_panduan_mett_2015.pdf]
Knights, K., Cuadros, I., Zamora, C., Coad, L., Leverington, F., O’Connor, B., Gonçalves de Lima, M., Kingston, N., Danks,
F., Hockings, M., Malugu, I., Scheren, P., Ngoye, E., Stephenson, P.J., and N.D. Burgess. 2014. A preliminary assessment
of protected area management within the WWF ‘Coastal East Africa’ priority place, Eastern Africa. PARKS 20.2, DOI:
10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.PARKS-20-2.KK.en.
Pap, C. 2012. Monitorowanie Postępu Wzarządzaniu Obszarami Chronionymi Wkrajachkarpackich, WWF International
Danube Carpathian Programme, Vienna, Austria [downloaded from: www.ccibis.org/images/PDF/CCPAMETT/PL%20
CCPAMETT_web.pdf]
Parrish, J., Braun, D.P. and R. S. Unnasch. 2003. Are we conserving what we say we are: measuring ecological integrity within
protected areas. BioScience 53, 851-860.

Pasha, M.K.S. Stolton, S., Baltzer, M. and M. Belecky. 2014. Conservation Assured Tiger Standards: A Multifunctional
Protected Area Management Tool to Aid Implementation of International Conventions, Multilateral Treaties, Global
Initiatives & National Action. October 2014, Conservation Assured, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
Lausche, B. 2011. Guidelines for Protected Areas Legislation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Leverington F., Costa K., Pavese H., Lisle A. and M. Hockings. 2010. A Global Analysis of Protected Area Management
Effectiveness. Environmental Management 46(5): 685-698.
Leverington F., Costa K.L., Courrau J., Pavese H., Nolte C., Marr M., Coad L., Burgess N., Bomhard B. and M. Hockings. 2010.
Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas: a global study. Second edition. University of Queensland, IUCN-
WCPA, TNC, WWF, St Lucia, Australia.
Leverington, F., Peterson, A. and G. Peterson. 2016. Methodology for assessment of protected area management effectiveness,
SPREP, Samoa
Malugu, I., Killenga. R. and T. Jones. 2008. East Usambara forest landscape restoration project. Tanzania
Forest Conservation Group [download from: www.easternarc.or.tz/groups/webcontent/documents/pdf/
TFCGEastUsambarabaselinemonitoringre.pdf]
Mascia, M.B., Pailler, S., Thieme, M.L., Rowe, A., Bottrill, M.C., Danielsen, F., Geldmann, J., Naidoo, R., Pullin, A.S. and N.D.
Burgess. 2014. Commonalities and complementarities among approaches to conservation monitoring and evaluation.
Biological Conservation 169, 258–267.
Mathur, V.B., Gopal, R. Yadav, S.P., Negi, H.S. and N.A. Ansari. 2014. Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) of Tiger
Reserves in India: Process and Outcomes. National Tiger Conservation Authority and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun
Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET). 2014. Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010-
2014), MET, Republic of Namibia.
Mwima, H.K. 2007. Synthesis of completed management effectiveness tracking tool for protected areas managed by the
Zambia Wildlife Authority for the year 2007, The Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources, Zambia.
National Parks, Wildlife and Conservation Department, Thailand and CA|TS. 2016. Summary of the First CA|TS Global
Consultation Meeting. Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur.
Nolte, C and A. Agrawal. 2012. Linking Management Effectiveness Indicators to Observed Effects of Protected Areas on Fire
Occurrence in the Amazon Rainforest. Conservation Biology, Volume 27, No. 1, 155–165.
Pauquet, P. 2005. Field-testing of Conservation International’s Management Effectiveness Assessment Questionnaire in Seven
Protected Areas in Bolivia. Parkswatch Boliva.
Quan, J., Ouyang, Z.Y., Xu, W.H. and H. Miao. 2009. Management effectiveness of China nature reserves: status quo
assessment and countermeasures. State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-
Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China.
Ramsar. 2015. Evaluation of the management and conservation effectiveness of Ramsar Sites. Resolution XII.15. [Downloaded
from: www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/cop12_res15_management_effectiveness_e.pdf]
Roux, D.J., Murray, K., Nel, J.L., Hill, L., Roux, H. and A. Driver. 2011. From scorecard to social learning: a reflective co-
assessment approach for promoting multiagency cooperation in natural resource management. Ecology and Society 16(1):
24.
Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A.J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart, S.H.M., Collen, B., Cox, N., Master, L.L.,
O’Connor, S. and D. Wilkie. 2008. A Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation: Unified Classifications of Threats and
Actions. Conservation Biology, 22: 897–911. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00937.x.
SEF. 2012. Management Effectiveness Assessment: Thanda Private Game Reserve & Mduna Royal Reserve. Space for
Elephants Foundation (SEF), KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Staub, F. and M.E. Hatziolos. 2004. Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals for Marine
Protected Areas. World Bank [downloaded from: documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2004/07/6065915/score-card-
assess-progress-achieving-management-effectiveness-goals-marine-protected-areas].
Stephenson, P.J., Burgess, N.D., Jungmann, L., Loh, J., O’Connor, S., Oldfield, T., Reidhead, W. and A. Shapiro. 2015.
Overcoming the challenges to conservation monitoring: integrating data from in-situ reporting and global data sets to
measure impact and performance, Biodiversity, 16, 2-3, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2015.1070373
Stoll-Kleemann, S. 2010. Evaluation of management effectiveness in protected areas: Methodologies and results. Basic and
Applied Ecology 11 (2010) 377–382.
Stolton, S., Hockings, M. and N. Dudley. 2002a. Reporting Progress on Management Effectiveness in Protected Areas. A simple
site-level tracking tool developed for the World Bank and WWF. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
Stolton, S., Hockings, M. and N. Dudley. 2002b. Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Background. An analysis of
existing methods used to assessment management effectiveness of protected areas by the World Bank. WWF International,
Gland, Switzerland.
Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., MacKinnon, K., Whitten, T. and F. Leverington. 2007. Management Effectiveness
Tracking Tool. Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Second Edition. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.
Swartzendruber. F. 2013. Sub-study on Results Based Management in GEF. OPS5Technical Document # 10. GEF Evaluation
Office.
Thomas, L. and J. Middleton. 2003. Guidelines for Management Planning of Protected Areas. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge.
UNEP WCMC and IUCN WCPA. 2016. Protected Area Management Effectiveness (PAME)
Information document for 20th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA),
UNEP WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. 2016. Protected Planet Report 2016. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN: Cambridge UK and Gland, Switzerland.
Valencia, I.D. and C. Duncan. 2006. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) Site Assessment Tool.
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, USA [download from: www.
whsrn.org/tools/site-assessment-tool/forms-tutorial].

Van Lavieren, H. and R. Klaus. 2013. An effective regional Marine Protected Area network for the ROPME Sea Area: Unrealistic
vision or realistic possibility?. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 72.2.
Walston, J., Robinson, J.G., Bennett, E.L., Breitenmoser, U., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Goodrich, J., Gumal, M., Hunter, L., Johnson,
A., Ullas Karanth, K., Leader-Williams, N., MacKinnon, K., Miquelle, D., Pattanavibool, A., Poole, C., Rabinowitz, A., Smith,
J.L.D., Stokes, E.J., Stuart, S.N., Vongkhamheng, C. and H. Wibisono 2010. Bringing the tiger back from the brink: the six
percent solution, PLoS Biology 8 (9)
Wildlife Conservation Division and Equilibrium Research. 2015. Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas in Bhutan: A
training session and initial assessment of five protected areas. Thimphu, Bhutan and Bristol, UK.
Wildlife Conservation Division and Equilibrium Research. 2016. External Assessment of Bhutan METT+ : Results for three
pilot protected areas. Thimphu, Bhutan and Bristol, UK.
Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S. and I. Pulsford (eds.). 2014. Protected Area Governance and Management,
pp. 889–928, ANU Press, Canberra.
World Bank/World Wildlife Fund. 2008. WB/WWF Biofuels Environmental Sustainability Scorecard [download from: http://
www.fao.org/bioenergy/28173-0ff9097a27061bb7225641118b93b617.pdf].
WWF. 2009. Protected area management effectiveness: METT. In: Adaptation of Landscape Tools in Support of REDD.
Contribution to the NORAD funded project Engaging Civil Society in REDD: Tools, Methodologies and Capacity Building
to Reduce Emissions from Forest Loss and Forest Degradation.
Zimsky, M., Ferraro, P., Mupemo, F., Robinson, J. and N. Sekhran. 2010. Results of the GEF biodiversity portolio monitoring
and learning review mission, Zambia. Enhancing outcomes and impact through improved understanding of protected area
management effectiveness. Global Environment Facility, Washington, D.C.

Endnotes
1 assets.panda.org/downloads/mett2_final_version_july_2007.pdf
2 www.wildernessfoundation.co.za/projects/promoting-management-effectiveness
3 globalwildlife.org/our-work/regions/africa/engaging-communities-to-protect-the-wildlife-
oasis-of-kitobo-forest/
4 www.sgmeet.com/icrs2016/viewabstract.asp?AbstractID=29638
5 papaco.org/286-2/
6 www.lestari-indonesia.org/en/usaid-lestari-program-launch-in-aceh/
7 www.whsrn.org/tools
8 www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/environment-energy/www-
ee-library/mainstreaming/monitoring-guidelines-of-capacity-development-in-gef-operations/
Monitoring%20Capacity%20Development-design-01.pdf
9 www.unpei.org/sites/default/files/PDF/ecosystems-economicanalysis/Financial-
Sustainability-Scorecard-PA.pdf
10 www.thegef.org/gef/BD_tracking_tool
11 www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=12297
12 www.protectedplanet.net/
13 whc.unesco.org/en/list
14 rsis.ramsar.org/
15 www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-
reserves/world-network-wnbr/wnbr/
16 www.isealalliance.org/our-work/defining-credibility/credibility-principles
17 assets.panda.org/downloads/mett2_final_version_july_2007.pdf

Contents
•METT HANDBOOK : A GUIDE TO USING THE MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS TRACKING TOOL (METT) 2016
BIODIVERSITY
Biodiversity, ecosystems and
ecosystem services – our
natural capital – must be
preserved as the foundation
MONITORING of well-being for all.
Good information
helps track whether
conservation targets
are being met.
EFFECTIVENESS
LEARNING Ensuring we make the very
best use of conservation
investments.
Lessons from practical
experience help build more
robust conservation.
For a future where people and nature thrive | wwf.org.uk

WWF.ORG.UK
© 1986 panda symbol and ® “WWF” Registered Trademark of WWF. WWF-UK registered
charity (1081247) and in Scotland (SC039593). A company limited by guarantee (4016725)
WWF-UK
The Living Planet Centre. Rufford House, Brewery Road, Woking, Surrey, GU21 4LL
Tel: +44 1483 426 444 www.wwf.org.uk/

WWF METT Handbook 2016 FINAL PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WWF METT Handbook 2016 FINAL PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WWF METT Handbook 2016 FINAL PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents METT use | Best practices | METT Q&A | Standards | Conclusions | Addendum | References

WWF is the world’s leading independent conservation organisation.

The designation of geographical entities in this handbook and the

Handbook prepared by Equilibrium Research for WWF-UK.

Published in August 2016 by WWF-UK. Any reproduction in full or

© Text 2016 WWF-UK. All rights reserved.

Front cover picture © Marc Hockings

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 2

3. BEST PRACTICE WHEN IMPLEMENTING THE METT

4. METT QUESTION-BY-QUESTION GUIDANCE

5. METT: PREPARING THE GROUNDWORK FOR PROTECTED AREA STANDARDS

7. ADDENDUM: METT ORIGINS, DIFFERENT VERSIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

REFERENCES AND NOTES

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 3

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 4

FOREWORD It is a pleasure for WWF-UK to

The purpose of this METT Handbook, therefore, is to provide definitive up-to-date

“Protected Areas are a central part of

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 5

The METT was originally designed to measure progress in management effectiveness

The first version of

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 6

Sue Stolton, Nigel Dudley and Marc Hockings

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 7

© JAMES FRANKHAM / WWF

The first version of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT)

1.1 Executive summary

The METT is strongest at measuring the effectiveness of management and weaker at

Carefully plan the METT implementation

Do it properly and do it all

4. Use quantitative data wherever available to support assessment, this is most

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 9

Adapt and translate

Repeat the assessment

Consultate and get consensus

Build capacity and guidance

9. As a generic tool the METT questions can be interpreted differently in

The first METT is likely to take at least a day, probably two.

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 10

6. Translation: the METT is already available in multiple languages (e.g., French,

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 11

© JÜRGEN FREUND / WWF

YEARS OF METT USE

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 12

2.1. Overview of METT use

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 13

Box 1: The key players in developing the METT

CBD: The Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) asked Parties to . . .

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 14

2.2. Studies using the METT to understand

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 15

© WWF-GREATER MEKONG / BARAMEE TEMBOONKIAT

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 16

In addition to these studies many studies of national or jurisdictional groups of METT

2.3. Using the METT to increase effective

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 17

2.4. Global database of METT results

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 18

A guide to using the METT ︱ page 19