Management effectiveness: Assessing management of protected areas?

To maximise the potential of protected areas, we need to understand the strengths and weaknesses in their management and the threats and stresses that they face. There is increasing pressure on governments and other bodies responsible for protected areas to monitor their effectiveness. The reasons for assessing management effectiveness include the desire by managers to adapt and improve their management strategies, improve planning and priority setting and the increasing demands for reporting and accountability being placed on managers, both nationally and internationally. Despite these differing purposes for assessment, some common themes and information needs can be identified, allowing assessment systems to meet multiple uses. Protected-area management evaluation has a relatively short history. Over the past 20 years a number of systems have been proposed but few have been adopted by management agencies. In response to a recognition of the need for a globally applicable approach to this issue, the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas developed a framework for assessing management effectiveness of both protected areas and protected area systems. This framework was launched at the World Conservation Congress in Jordan in 2000. The framework provides guidance to managers to develop locally relevant assessment systems while helping to harmonise assessment approaches around the world. The framework is strongly linked to the protected area management process and is adaptable to different types and circumstances of protected areas around the world. Examples from Fraser Island in Australia and the Congo Basin illustrate the use of the framework.

Options for guaranteeing the effective management of the world's protected areas

A rapid increase in the number and size of protected areas has prompted interest in their effectiveness and calls for guarantees that they are providing a good return on investment by maintaining their values. Research reviewed here suggests that many remain under threat and a significant number are already suffering deterioration. One suggestion for encouraging good management is to develop a protected-area certification system: however this idea remains controversial and has created intense debate. We list a typology of options for guaranteeing good protected-area management, and give examples, including: danger lists; self-reporting systems against individual or standardised criteria; and independent assessment including standardised third-party reporting, use of existing certification systems such as those for forestry and farming and certification tailored specifically to protected areas. We review the arguments for and against certification and identify some options, such as: development of an accreditation scheme to ensure that assessment systems meet minimum standards; building up experience from projects that are experimenting with certification in protected areas; and initiating certification schemes for specific users such as private protected areas or institutions like the World Heritage Convention.

The rural medicine rotation: Increasing rural recruitment through quality undergraduate rural experiences

TITLE: The Rural Medicine Rotation: Increasing Rural Recruitment through Quality Undergraduate Rural Experiences Eley Diann, University of Queensland, School of Medicine, Rural Clinical Division, Toowoomba 4350, Queensland Australia Baker Peter, University of Queensland, School of Medicine Rural, Clinical Division, Toowoomba 4350, Queensland Australia Chater Bruce, University of Queensland, Chair, Clinical School Management Committee, School of Medicine Rural Clinical Division, Queensland Australia CONTEXT: While rural background and rural exposure during medical training increases the likelihood of rural recruitment (Wilkinson, 2003), the quality and content of that exposure is the key to altering undergraduatesâ?? perceptions of rural practice. The Rural Clinical Division at University of Queensland (UQ) runs the Rural Medicine Rotation (RMR) within the School of Medicine. The RMR is one of five eight week clinical rotations in Year three and is compulsory for all students. The RMR provides the opportunity to learn from a wide range of health professionals and clinical exposure is not restricted to general practice but also includes remote area nursing, Indigenous health care, allied health professionals and medical specialists. Week 1 involves preparation for their rural placement with workshops and seminars and Week 8 consolidates their placement and includes case and project presentations and a summative assessment. Weeks 2-7 are spent living and working as part of the health team in different rural communities. SETTING: Rural communities in and around Queensland including locations such as Arnham Land, Thursday Island, Mt. Isa and Alice Springs METHOD: All aspects of the RMR are evaluated with surveys using both qualitative and quantitative free response questions, completed by all students at the end of the Week 8. RESULTS: Overall the RMR is evaluated highly and narratives offered by students show that the RMR provides a positive rural experience. The overall impact of the RMR for students in 2004 ranked 3.45 on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 = lowest and 4 = highest), and is exemplified by the following quote; â??I enjoyed my placement so much I am now considering rural medicine something I definitely had not considered beforeâ??. OUTCOME: The positive impact of the RMR on studentâ??s perceptions of rural medicine is encouraging and can help achieve the overall aim of increasing recruitment of the rural workforce in Australia.

Approaches to environmental noise policy in Australia

Australia is a federation of six states and two territories. Legislation for environmental noise is the responsibility of each of the Australian states and territories. The Federal government has the responsibility for national issues such as aircraft noise and also to encourage harmonisation of the legislation and regulations among the states and territories. For some decades there has been a document on environmental noise produced by Standards Australia but it is up to each state or territory to call up part or all of this Standard. For general environmental noise some states use comparison with background as the criteria while others define the criteria levels based on land use zones. Both approaches have their advantages and drawbacks. This paper will compare and contrast the different legislation and regulations and discuss the issue of 'cross border' disputes.