EoH and the Serengeti General Management Plan

Two processes: EoH and GMP

EoH tools which directly fed into the management plan development Tool 5: Assessment of Management Planning Tool 1: Identifying Site Values and Management Objectives (context) Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation (outputs) Tool 12: Review of Management Effectiveness Assessment Results (outcome)

Assessment of previous management plans Main recommendations Need for a clear distinction between objectives (outcomes), outputs and actions Clear link between parks purpose statement and the objectives (outcomes), outputs and actions Make the plan more relevant to the day-to-day management needs of SENAPA park managers.

Serengeti National Park 10 year General Management Plan Management programmes Management objectives and strategies Targets Management actions Purpose and values 3 year action plans Context Monitoring plan

Monitoring of GMP Output monitoring Outcome monitoring Ecosystem monitoring plan Tourism monitoring plan Community outreach monitoring plan Park operations monitoring plan Serengeti GMP Implementation database Output and outcome monitoring

Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation Concept: Is the management plan and/or work programme being implemented and what are the results, or outputs, from the management process? Methodology and datasheet: System for ranking implementation status of activities outlined in primary planning document Outputs: Plan implementation

Ranking actions 1.Action has not commenced 2.Work is only reactive and not to a set plan 3.Planning is in progress 4.Policy and/or planning stages are complete but have not been implemented 5.Some work has commenced in all or some areas 6.Action is making substantial progress in all areas 7.Action has been completed or policy is in place

Serengeti management plan outputs relating to: Relations and benefits to local communities Action Year Develop a program of improved interaction between the park law enforcement staff, Districts and local communities Expand and strengthen TANAPA’s program of benefit sharing with local communities surrounding Serengeti National Park, especially in areas of high encroachment Ensure local communities are given first priority for providing goods and services to park/tourist operations and development Ensure that park benefit sharing is linked to resource substitution and a reduction in the use of park resources Expand and strengthen technical partnerships in communities and Districts surrounding the park Expand and strengthen conservation education and awareness links with the Serengeti Visitor Center (SVC), tourists and communities surrounding the park 43222

Management Plan Implementation

Management Plan Implementation Database Database that mirrors the structure and content of the management plan Makes the management plan available in an electronic form so that it more accessible to managers for daily use Provides a way for tracking the extent to which the actions in the management plan have been implemented

Database benefits Track individual actions over time Track effort put into different management areas Forward planning tool to determine priority actions Captures comments on possible adjustments to plan Helps with plan review and preparation of annual plans and three-year rolling programme Can search management plan for actions relating to a particular topic

Draft plan into database For all actions in the plan Assigned key words – so actions are searchable under themes Defined if the action was urgent or not within the timeframe of the plan

Keywords Tourism Poaching Fire Communities Visitor management Campsites Commercial tourism Tour operators Lodges Interpretation Information Liaison Research Monitoring Environmental impacts Human/animal conflict Natural resources Cultural resources Training Staff Zonation Infrastructure Equipment Law enforcement Administration Policy Funding Planning Waste management Water management Corridors Migration Conservation/development orgs.

Outcomes: Ecosystem Monitoring

Outcomes Assessment Tool 12: A Methodology for Assessing the Outcomes of Management – related to Ecological Integrity Concept: Is management protecting the values for which the site was designated Methodology and datasheet: Ecological monitoring assessment developed

Ecosystem Management Programme Prioritised eight conservation targets A series of Key Ecological Attributes (KEAs) Indicators for assessing status and trends of KEAs

Step 1: Agree the major conservation targets to identify a group of “key ecological attributes” that need to be monitored Step 2: Make an initial choice of measures / indicators to reflect the targets and attributes Step 5: Compare data needed with existing monitoring processes / data and identify gaps Step 6: Develop detailed monitoring protocols Step 8: Assessment of management outcomes: initially to establish a baseline and then to monitor against this baseline Step 7: Develop a data management system Step 4: Finalise indicators Step 3: Refine this draft list of indicators and determine their thresholds and power to detect change Optional step 3a: identify responses to a breach of the thresholds

Conservation target 1: The migration Traditional migratory routes Population size of key species Productivity / recruitment Forage quality/spatial availability Indicator: Seasonal migratory movements (in the west of the Grumeti River (Ikona WMA); East Kuka/West Loliondo route to Kenya; Salai Plains, Lake Victoria; Maswa, Grumeti and Ikorongo GR) Justification for selection: Threats to the ecosystem which support the migration route, especially in the areas outlined above Minimum integrity thresholds Confidence level of threshold Monitoring activity Monitoring details (status, protocols, responsibilities etc) Management options/ implications If there is a breakdown of traditional migratory routes HighCurrent: Ranger reports daily and anti- poaching patrol that follows migration Need system to systemise and analyse information into GIS system Increasing the protection status for areas covered by the migration outside of the Park. Implementing Speke Bay corridor - migration route to Lake Victoria in dry season. Current: Wildebeest Collars (suggest that this is probably not a cost- effective method of monitoring migratory routes) Information from eight collars has been collected over the last # years but seven collars are no longer in operation. For this type of monitoring to be effective some 40 collars would need to be operating. New: Mapping migratory routes through aerial point survey Monthly surveys during times when migration is outside Park boundary

Target 1: The Migration IndicatorMinimum integrity thresholdStatusTrend Seasonal migratory movementsIf there is a breakdown of traditional migratory routes ConcernUnchanged Population size of large ungulatesMajor unexpected fluctuationGoodUnchanged Population size of key carnivores except lions Major unnatural fluctuationsGood (But leopards not surveyed) Unchanged Population size of lionsMajor fluctuations in populationsGoodUnchanged Recruitment of key speciesDeclining juvenilesGoodUnchanged Mortality of key speciesUnexplained mortalityGoodUnchanged Rainfall patterns and trendsIncreased frequency and severity of droughts Good (But more data analysis needed) Unchanged Fire patterns and extent of dry season fires Any fires in fire refuge areasConcernUnchanged Trend in poaching off-takeIncreased trend in poaching off-takeSignificant concern No trend established Continuing popl. pressure and extent of cultivation near migratory routes If human popl. pressure has major impacts on ecosystem integrity Significant concernDeteriorating (but needs more monitoring) Intact park boundaryIf there was major damage to park boundary beacons Concern (But beacons not yet complete) (Too early to see trends) Agricultural are in the NCAIncreasing trends in agriculture (Monitoring to be carried out)

Ecological Integrity: Draft assessment results Overview of each target and a breakdown of status and trends of individual indicators

Lessons learned The tools developed for EoH can provide a much of the background information needed to develop a target based management plan for natural World Heritage sites The tools also provide a good foundation for the development of monitoring of plans outputs (i.e. actions) and outcomes (i.e. overall objectives) Will it work for cultural sites as well?