PROJECT NOTE

The Protected Area Conservation Strategy (PARCS) is a four-year project. The project's first phase comprised an assessment of training needs among protected area managers across eastern, central, and southern Africa. The project's second phase involves assisting protected area authorities to develop training plans and innovative training techniques that address the training needs of protected area managers in selected African countries.

The Biodiversity Support Program (BSP) manages the PARCS project. A collaborative group of three nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and World Wildlife Fund (WWF)—implements the project. AWF is responsible for implementing PARCS in eastern Africa, WCS is the lead organization in Francophone central Africa, and WWF takes the lead in southern Africa.

The high level of collaboration among the implementing NGOs has been a key element in the project's success to date. The organizations' wealth of experience, the many partnerships they have already established in the field, and their commitment to conservation in Africa have benefited the project tremendously. The project has built on these groups' strengths and expertise in adopting a cross-regional approach to addressing the serious need for training among protected area managers in Africa.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

From both headquarters and the field, many individuals associated with protected area authorities across Africa contributed their time, energy, and ideas to this project. We would like to give special thanks to the Department of Wildlife and National Parks of Botswana; Institut National pour l'Environnement et la Conservation de la Nature of Burundi; Ministère de l'Environnement et des Forêts, Direction de la Faune et Des Aires Protégées of Cameroon; Ecole Des Spécialistes de la Faune in Garoua, Cameroon; Ministère Des Eaux et Forêts et de la Pêche of Congo; Ministère de l'Environnement of Congo; Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization; Kenya Wildlife Service; Moi University's Department of Wildlife Management in Kenya; Department of National Parks and Wildlife of Malawi; Diretoria Nacional de Florestas e Fauna of Mozambique; Ministére de l'Environnement, Office Rwandais pour le Tourisme et les Parcs Nationaux, and Ministère de l'Agriculture, de l'Elevage, et des Forêts of Rwanda; Somali Wildlife Department; Somali National Range Agency; Ecological Consulting Services in South Africa; Southern Africa Nature Foundation in South Africa; Tanzania Wildlife Division; Tanzania National Parks; College of African Wildlife Management at Mweka in Tanzania; Uganda National Parks; Uganda Game Department; Uganda Forestry Department; InstitutZaïrois pour la Conservation de la Nature; Zambian National Parks and Wildlife Service; and Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management of Zimbabwe. The project would not have been successful without the support of these institutions.

Ted Dardani, former Senior Program Officer for East and Southern Africa at World Wildlife Fund and Kate Newman, Program Manager for Africa at the Biodiversity Support Program (BSP) developed the concept for the Protected Area Conservation Strategy (PARCS). Together they wrote the proposal for the assessment of training needs and opportunities which secured funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

The three nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) responsible for implementing PARCS—African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and World Wildlife Fund (WWF)—designated regional managers to conduct the assessment of training needs and opportunities in the field. The regional managers were: Deborah Snelson of AWF, Annette Lanjouw of WCS, and Michael Dyer of WWF. The three regional managers and Barbara Pitkin, Senior Program Officer for Africa at BSP, developed the methodology for the assessment under the guidance of Peter Woolf of Price Waterhouse/Nairobi.

The implementing NGOs designated individuals from their headquarters staffs to join the core team charged with overseeing and guiding the assessment. This core team consisted of Cynthia Jensen, formerly of AWF and now of WWF; Deborah Snelson of AWF; Amy Vedder and Hilary Simons Morland of WCS; Sissel Waage of WWF; and Kate Newman of BSP.

Barbara Pitkin of BSP coordinated and managed the assessment. Deborah Snelson coordinated field activities from AWF's office in Nairobi. Tim Resch was USAID's technical manager for the assessment. We extend special thanks to the staff of AWF's Nairobi office for their administrative support during team meetings in Nairobi.

Barbara Pitkin wrote this report. Michael Dyer, Annette Lanjouw, Kate Newman, and Deborah Snelson provided extensive input. Vitalis Wafula and David Sumba of AWF helped analyze the data. Hilary Simons Morland and Sissel Waage reviewed and commented on successive drafts of the report. Rebecca Clay copy-edited the report. Clarine Simpson-Vaughn and Michael Honigsberg helped format the report for publication.

USAID's Bureau for Africa funded the assessment, which was managed through its Office of Sustainable Development, Division of Productive Sector Growth and the Environment. BSP and WWF provided supplementary funding. AWF, WCS, and WWF contributed staff time to the project.


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

GLOSSARY

Africa's future development may depend upon its rich biological resources. Many of these resources are safeguarded within the continent's extensive network of protected areas. These protected areas demand skilled management. The Protected Area Conservation Strategy (PARCS) was set up to assist the authorities charged with managing Africa's protected areas in ensuring that protected area managers have the skills they need to do their jobs effectively.

The PARCS project follows a logical sequence of steps. The project team first assessed training needs. Next, it sought out sources of appropriate training. Then the team began working in collaboration with relevant authorities to develop plans and processes so that effective training is accomplished, existing training opportunities are utilized, and long-term human resource development issues are addressed.

During Phase I, the PARCS team conducted an extensive assessment of training needs and opportunities among protected area managers in selected countries in eastern, central, and southern Africa. The methodology for this assessment departed from other training assessments in a number of ways.¹First, it embraced a participatory approach in which the needs and priorities of African protected area managers were sought and heard. Second, the assessment identified specific, targeted training needs and then explored a wide range of opportunities that could help fulfill those needs. Finally, the assessment used structured data-gathering, enabling the project team to compare findings across countries and regions and facilitating the cross-fertilization of ideas and initiatives. A series of reports detail the assessment's findings in each country.² Summarizing the assessment's cross-regional findings is the function of this report. The PARCS team is disseminating these findings to all participating protected area authorities.

During Phase II, the PARCS team has been working intensively with protected area authorities in selected eastern, central, and southern African countries to help develop training plans and processes and identify, test, and demonstrate innovative training techniques. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will help PARCS participants manage their activities adaptively. Phase II is designed to help coordinate existing programs, increase communication among training institutions and other organizations, and create regional and cross-regional networks of protected area management professionals. To ensure cross-regional communication, collaboration, and coordination among project participants, a series of cross-regional workshops is being held in Africa. As it is recognized that many other African nations could contribute ideas and experience to this process, as well as benefit from the lessons generated by the project, PARCS includes non targeted countries in these and other regional and cross-regional activities.

Thorough documentation is an integral part of the PARCS process. The lessons learned will be continuously disseminated to authorities across Africa. The goal of this dissemination is to inspire creative thinking and innovative training initiatives across the continent.

Taken as a whole, PARCS serves as a model that protected area authorities can learn from and adapt to their own situations as they begin to assess and meet the needs of their protected area managers. Through the analysis, dialogue, and partnership-building of Phase I, the PARCS project has already accomplished impressive results. What follows is a discussion of that work.


¹The complete methodology used for the assessment is appended in the Annex to this report.
²Country reports may be obtained by contacting the organizations listed on page 82.

Africa is home to a remarkable array of species and ecosystems—biodiversity that is critical to the lives of all Africans as a source of such essentials as food, medicines, and building materials. For decades, Africa has been striving to protect its biodiversity by establishing an extensive network of protected areas. This network constitutes one of the most important safeguards of the continent's biological diversity.

Africa's protected areas encompass all the continent's major ecosystems, including forests, savannahs, marine areas, and deserts. Africa's protected areas range in size from tiny parks such as Kenya's 192 hectare Saiwa Swamp National Park to massive ones such as Zaire's 3,656,000 hectare Salonga National Park, which contains the largest area of protected tropical moist forest in Africa.

The job of maintaining the integrity of Africa's protected areas rests on the shoulders of their managers. The titles these managers hold vary across the continent. Whether they are called regional officers, conservateurs, senior wardens, or wardens, their overall responsibility is essentially the same: they are the highest ranking decision-makers at a protected area.

Years ago, Africa's protected areas were generally pristine tracts of land, whose integrity was unthreatened. Today, these areas and the threats they face are changing rapidly. As many African countries experience economic downturns, for instance, national governments are considering the timber, minerals, and other valuable resources housed in many protected areas with an eye to extraction. As populations burgeon, citizens are beginning to encroach upon many protected areas to gain access to land, wood, plants, and animals they can use to fulfill their basic needs. And as some protected areas become sophisticated commercial enterprises, the unprecedented number of tourists creates human impacts such as water demands and waste disposal problems.

These changes mean that the skills required of protected area managers must also change. As always, protected area managers need a whole range of scientific and technical skills that enable them to manage the natural resources they are charged with protecting. They need to be able to manage their staffs, enforce laws, provide input on plans and policies, and help implement those plans and policies. Now more than ever, however, they also need to be spokespersons for protected areas. Protected area managers need to understand the needs, cultural practices, and rights of communities bordering protected areas. They need to interact effectively with these communities and, in many cases, work with residents on conservation and development activities. And they need to maintain a comfortable, safe environment for tourists and ensure that the revenue generated by tourism is collected and accounted for responsibly.

The PARCS assessment was designed to test a series of hypotheses about protected area managers and their jobs. The hypotheses included the following ideas:

• That protected area managers' jobs are becoming increasingly complex, requiring proficiency in an array of diverse skills;
• That the training protected area managers receive does not cover the breadth of skills required in their jobs;
• That training for protected area managers must be revamped to meet current needs; and
• That new training sources are available to be tapped.

The assessment set out to identify the skills protected area managers need to do their jobs effectively; determine which training needs protected area managers see as priorities; identify and assess the types, sources, amount, and frequency of the training protected area managers currently receive; identify additional opportunities for training; and identify constraints to adequate and effective training.

The PARCS assessment found that nowadays, the average protected area manager must take on a long list of responsibilities:

• Ensuring the availability of a competent and well-motivated staff;
• Maintaining the area's infrastructure within budget;
• Overseeing financial and accounting procedures;
• Developing and implementing tactical plans and budgets and contributing to strategic planning;
• Ensuring that all activities comply with laws and regulations;
• Keeping visitors satisfied;
• Ensuring that required intervention programs are completed according to budget and timetable;
• Promoting harmonious relationships with neighboring communities;
• Being aware of research activities and facilitating research;
• Representing the protected area and its interests in public meetings; and
• Balancing resource conservation and use appropriately.

Protected area managers across Africa take this job seriously. They work hard to give their staffs a good work ethic, a commitment to conservation, and a positive attitude toward local communities. Most protected area managers are skilled in the technical aspects of wildlife management. Most are also skilled in the languages spoken in communities near their protected areas, which enhances their ability to resolve conflicts and promote good will.

Despite this high level of skill and effort, protected area managers experience difficulty in meeting some of the many demanding requirements of their jobs. In the PARCS assessment, managers were asked a series of questions about their ability to fulfill their job requirements.

Most managers across eastern, central, and southern Africa felt that they needed the most training in the following three overall job responsibilities:

• Implementing intervention programs such as controlled burning, wildlife management and control, and vegetation management programs;
• Ensuring visitor satisfaction, including managing and controlling tourist activity and developing sustainable tourism programs with minimal impact on the environment; and
• Promoting conservation in local communities, such as working with local communities to promote sustainable natural resource management practices and resolving conflicts between protected areas and local communities.

That intervention emerged as a weak area came as a surprise since most traditional training programs for protected area managers target this subject. Managers may be anxious about their ability to perform in this area, however, as the complexity of wildlife management issues increases apace with the number of people living near protected areas. The emergence of visitor satisfaction and community-based conservation as special areas of concern was less surprising. Because tourism and integrated conservation and development are on the rise in much of Africa, managers feel the need to improve their performance in these areas.

The assessment also examined a broad range of knowledge skills that help protected area managers fulfill their various job responsibilities, such as technical, management, and legal skills. Managers across the continent feltt hat they most needed training in the following skills:

• Policies and procedures, such as policies and procedures for protected areas and visitor policies and procedures;
• Planning, such as knowing how to develop staff plans and timetables, long-and short-term visitor plans, job plans, and community conservation plans; and
• Finance and accounting, such as bookkeeping, community finance, and fund disbursement.

In many countries, authorities are delegating new responsibilities to managers in the field. The result has been uncertainty about which policies and procedures to follow. Because planning, finance, and accounting are new responsibilities for many managers, they are anxious about these skills. As protected area managers' responsibilities increase, their skills must be strengthened.

Many protected area managers feel they lack basic technical and administrative skills. For example, many managers expressed a need for more training in techniques for undertaking biological inventories and collecting ecological data.

As the nature of activities undertaken within protected areas evolves, managers also need specialized skills in new areas. In Malawi, for example, the government has started to allow controlled harvests of selected resources within protected areas. Sustainable harvesting and community extension work demand specialized technical and managerial skills that managers' training may not provide.

The assessment also examined mental skills, such as problem analysis and comprehension, and social skills, such as oral and written communication. Managers most wanted to develop the following mental and social skills:

• Creativity, such as developing options to achieve plans and budgets in light of changing circumstances and designing or adapting interventions to meet specific needs;
• Problem analysis, such as determining the causes of poor staff performance, the failure to achieve goals or keep budgets, or deviation from the intended results of interventions; and
• Evaluation, such as evaluating staff performance and determining why certain initiatives have succeeded or failed.
  

All of these skills are related. Essentially, managers identified a need to improve their ability to understand the causes of problems, develop and implement solutions to those problems, and evaluate the effectiveness of their actions. Again, this need may be a response to the decentralization trend that is giving more responsibility to protected area managers in many countries across the continent.

Recognizing what skills they need, protected area managers see training as the appropriate route to meet these needs. Today most of Africa's protected area managers receive training at the two leading institutions for formal training in wildlife management, the College of African Wildlife Management (CAWM) at Mweka in Tanzania and the Ecole Des Spécialistes de la Faune in Garoua (EFG), Cameroon. Protected area managers across Africa generally place a premium on formal training because it often brings such benefits as salary increases and promotions. Nevertheless, the PARCS assessment suggests that formal training has not kept pace with the increasing demands of protected area managers' jobs.

Moreover, most of the training protected area managers receive occurs before they start their jobs. Very little retraining or midcareer professional development is available. Few protected area authorities develop or provide any short-term training for their staffs during their terms of service. Once they are hired, protected area managers generally receive training only sporadically, benefiting mostly from on-the-job training, such as receiving guidance from colleagues and supervisors or learning by doing.

Ideally, training should be provided throughout one's career. Training should not only equip individuals with the skills they need at entry level. It should also enable them to grow with their positions. As the duties and responsibilities of positions change, training can give individuals the skills they need to continue to function effectively.

Most protected area authorities in Africa do not ensure that training occurs throughout their managers' careers. Few protected area authorities have training plans or a coherent system to ensure that all protected area management staff members receive adequate training. When plans do exist, they may just be a way of coordinating overseas training. In fact, training records often consist merely of lists of overseas training. Only a few authorities have training officers— individuals charged with planning, coordinating, and implementing training. The end result is that most protected area managers receive training only on an ad hoc basis.

As a result, many opportunities for providing low-cost training are lost. New staff members may have skills that they could pass on to their colleagues through in-house workshops or seminars. Staff members who receive donor- funded training overseas could conduct in-house sessions in which they transmit the skills they have acquired.

Outside sources could also provide appropriate in-service training. Local clerical schools or accounting firms, for example, could provide training in bookkeeping. Business schools or management consulting firms could teach personnel management. Hotel schools or tourism and safari companies could teach tourist management. Law schools or law firms could teach legal skills. Authorities rarely tap these resources.

The findings of the PARCS assessment inspired several suggestions:

• Protected area authorities need to embrace the concept of training as a process that occurs throughout a protected area manager's professional career;
• Authorities need to develop training plans. These plans should be tied to job descriptions; the authorities should develop job descriptions if they do not already exist;
• Training officers should implement the training plans and maintain training records;
• Authorities should link training plans to an ongoing process of identifying training needs;
• Training officers should develop short, frequently repeated courses tailored to the specific needs of protected area staff;
• Authorities should take advantage of nontraditional training sources; and
• Existing training institutions should update their curricula.

Given these recommendations, Phase II of the PARCS project is focusing on helping authorities develop training plans and innovative, low cost, and appropriate training techniques to meet the needs of protected area managers in selected African countries. The project will also help participants from eastern, central, and southern Africa communicate and collaborate across regions as a way of spreading ideas and information about protected area management training.

CHAPTER I
AFRICA'S PROTECTED AREAS AND THEIR MANAGERS




Africa's protected areas embrace fragile coral reefs off the coast of Kenya, dense coastal mangroves in the Gambia, and tremendous freshwater lakes in Malawi. They contain vast tracts of tropical moist forest in Congo and Zaire. Powerful Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe and Zambia and the world-renowned wetlands of Botswana enjoy protected area status; so too the high montane areas of Ethiopia and the vast plains of the Serengeti in Tanzania.

The treasures found in Africa's protected areas are at once obvious and subtle. The flora and fauna include some of the world's most exotic and appealing species, which attract the attention of biologists, ecologists, photographers, hunters, birders, adventurers, and tourists. Africa's protected areas also contain countless species and ecosystems that escape global attention. While less dazzling than the vast herds of wildlife that are Africa's most popular attraction, these species and ecosystems have unquestionable value. They may be sources of food or medicine today or may provide the ingredients for future products or pharmaceuticals.

People both locally and internationally value Africa's protected areas. Nonetheless, there are forces undermining these areas. Economic crises force many African countries to harvest the riches of their protected areas, such as commercial hardwoods from tropical moist forests. High population densities in many African countries push people into protected areas, their slash and burn agriculture leading to soil deterioration. Poverty, compounded by irregularities in rainfall patterns in recent years, compels subsistence farmers to illegally harvest wood, hunt game, and graze cattle within protected areas. Civil unrest in some areas is causing refugees to utilize protected areas as sources of food, water and shelter. The rapid development of tourism in many countries is resulting in the overuse of certain resources. In recent years, conservationists have feared that Africa's protected areas are losing the battle against these threats.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING THESE AREAS?

Any effort to bolster Africa's protected areas must start by bolstering the authorities charged with managing these areas. In most cases, these authorities are governmental or parastatal agencies that maintain staff at central offices and in the field.

Although the protected area authorities have overall responsibility for managing protected areas, much of the weight of responsibility falls upon the man or woman who holds the highest managerial position in the field. That person - whether he or she is called a warden, regional officer, conservateur, senior warden, or another title—is often the one who makes the difficult day-to-day decisions that dictate whether the protected area will meet its goals.

A protected area manager's job description would give most professionals in other fields pause. Although protected area managers' primary responsibility is to manage the area's ecological base, that is just the beginning. Managers must also supervise the many individuals working within the protected area. They must deal effectively with the public, both tourists and local residents. They must account for all monies generated and disbursed. They must make timely decisions about interventions such as controlling problem animals and the burning of grasses. They must ensure that the area's infrastructure is adequately maintained. And they must enforce all policies, procedures, and laws. Protected area managers need to be trouble shooters, to think on their feet. The skills that they need range from technical wildlife skills to business skills such as planning, management, accounting, and finance. Managers need to be able to analyze a problem, develop a creative solution, and communicate the course of action effectively.

There is no typical protected area manager. Their education,experience, and working conditions vary from country to country and from authority to authority. In Malawi, for example, protected area managers typically hold university degrees. In Congo, for example, a number of protected area managers have not received any schooling beyond primary school and have not received any training in protected area management.

Most protected area managers are men, but some are women. One female protected area manager in Zambia participated in the Protected Area Conservation Strategy (PARCS) assessment. A graduate of the College of African Wildlife Management at Mweka, she commands the respect of her colleagues by being articulate, thoughtful, self-assured, and well-versed in wildlife management techniques and certain community conservation issues.

Most protected area managers are hard working, some exceptionally so. The late Conservateur en Chef of the southern sector of Zaire's Virunga National Park was utterly dedicated to conservation and indefatigable in his efforts to develop tourism in a way that was controlled, sustainable, and minimally disturbing to the animals and their habitat.

Most protected area managers are well-armed with technical wildlife management skills. Some already have the social science skills that the job increasingly demands. Park wardens at Uganda's Lake Mburo National Park, for instance, have tried diligently to redress hostilities between park authorities and neighboring pastoralist communities by creating a community conservation unit in the park, working with the park's neighbors to establish a mutually agreed upon park boundary, and engaging in delicate negotiations to persuade illegal squatters to relocate outside the park.

WHAT ARE THE CONSTRAINTS?

Africa's protected area managers and the institutions in which they work face many challenges. Limited funds mean that employees are ill-paid, materials are in short supply, and the purchase and maintenance of equipment and infrastructure are handicapped. These tight budgets lead many people to view protected area management as less important than other areas of government work. Because many people consider rural areas to be backward and unsophisticated, jobs in the field are least prestigious and trained staff often gravitate toward positions at headquarters. In Congo, for example, graduates of the Ecole Des Spécialistes de la Faune in Garoua usually end up in directorate-level positions in the capital city and never apply their training in the field.

The way decisions are made is another problem. Protected area authorities typically have a highly centralized decision-making structure. This centralization means that protected area managers must often obtain authority from headquarters on all but the most trivial tasks. The more sensitive the issue, the more likely it is that a higher authority must intervene indecision-making. This hierarchy encumbers expedient handling of problems. Because the infrastructure linking urban and rural areas is generally not well developed, communication between headquarters and the field is often poor and the exchange of information severely hampered.

Compounding these problems is the fact that coordination and communication between research and management is limited. In many protected area management authorities, managers have little understanding of the research taking place in their areas. Because most research is undertaken by universities, focuses on single species, and has a theoretical bias, the information generated may not be directly applicable to management decisions. It may not even be available. In many cases, researchers share the information they collect only with their universities, not local agencies. Although applied research has recently moved to the forefront, this work is still largely the domain of external researchers, not departmental employees.

Perhaps the greatest constraint to effective management, however, is the fact that most protected area managers are simply ill-prepared to handle the complexity of their jobs. The skills they enter their jobs with are not necessarily all of the skills they need, and opportunities for further skill- building are limited. This lack of proper training severely hampers protected area managers effectiveness.

To design the PARCS assessment, members of the conservation community developed several hypotheses about the state of protected area management in Africa today. The hypotheses included the following ideas:

• That protected area managers' jobs are becoming increasingly complex, requiring proficiency in an array of diverse skills;
• That the training protected area managers receive does not cover the breadth of skills required in their jobs;
• That training for protected area managers must be revamped to meet current needs; and
• That new training sources are available to be tapped.

What follows is a brief description of the PARCS project and a summary of the cross-regional findings of the assessment that was designed to test these hypotheses.

CHAPTER II
THE PARCS ASSESSMENT

A request to provide training for five guards in a Botswana park sparked the idea behind the Protected Area Conservation Strategy (PARCS). This request was consistent with the pattern of ad hoc training both donors and protected area authorities have fostered across the continent. In most African countries, neither international funders nor protected area authorities themselves have systematically assessed what skills protected area staff need most. Consequently, coherent strategies for addressing training needs are few and far between on the national level and virtually nonexistent on the regional and cross-regional levels. With these thoughts in mind, the training of the five guards gave way to a more comprehensive assessment of training needs and opportunities across the entire continent.

WHO SHOULD DO THE ASSESSMENT?

It was decided that inviting individuals or groups not affiliated with any protected area authority to conduct the assessment would maximize the assessment's objectivity. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) active in African conservation offered the kind of experienced but objective perspective the exercise required. Three NGOs were invited to implement the assessment: African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) in eastern Africa, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) in central Africa, and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in southern Africa. All three organizations have long-standing experience in the field of African conservation, especially in the designated regions. By facilitating collaboration among the three groups, it was anticipated that the PARCS process would spread the lessons learned from the NGOs' existing projects in the field and the expertise of their staff members.

COUNTRY BY COUNTRY OR A PAN-AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE?

Protected areas dot the African continent. No matter where a protected area is located, its management requires many similar skills. The unique characteristics of some areas, however, demand site-specific skills. A continent-wide assessment could reveal which skills managers across the continent need and which areas generally lack such skills. Because the PARCS team could not find an assessment of trends across a region or regions, they decided to draw data from as many African countries as possible. They wanted to highlight regional or cross-regional needs for donor or protected area authority collaboration. They also wanted to find areas that have met specific needs that could serve as models for other countries on the continent.

WHO IS THE APPROPRIATE TARGET?

The PARCS team understood that across Africa the real work of implementing policies, carrying out management plans, dealing with the public, and enforcing rules and regulations falls upon the person occupying the highest managerial level in the field. In some countries this person is a warden, in others a regional officer, in still others a senior warden. The PARCS project encompasses all of these people in the term protected area managers. Past assessments of training needs in Africa have largely overlooked this layer of management. In fact, the vast majority of past assessments have focused on game guards, who simply carry out the directives of protected area managers. In contrast, the PARCS team sought to fill the information gap by focusing on the individuals who make critical management decisions on a day-to-day basis: protected area managers.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE ASSESSED?

Steering future training efforts away from the ad hoc approach and toward a carefully targeted training strategy demanded a complete assessment of training needs, priorities, opportunities, and constraints. Together with the Biodiversity Support Program (BSP), AWF, WCS, and WWF designed an assessment that included the following elements:

• Identifying the skills protected area managers need to do their jobs effectively;
• Determining which training needs protected area managers see as priorities;
• Identifying and assessing the types, sources, amount, and frequency of the training protected area managers currently receive;
• Identifying additional opportunities for training; and
• Identifying constraints to adequate and effective training.

THE PEOPLE INVOLVED

The three implementing NGOs designated regional managers to conduct the training needs and opportunities assessment in the field. The regional managers were: Deborah Snelson of AWF, Annette Lanjouw of WCS, and Michael Dyer of WWF. These three individuals worked directly with hundreds of protected area staff across Africa.

THE TRAINING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

The PARCS team developed a questionnaire in matrix form to help them assess the skills effective protected area management requires, determine the level of skills protected area managers currently have, and identify the sources of managers' training. The team adopted the matrix approach because it is an efficient and practical way to present the job description of a protected area manager, displaying clearly the job's main responsibilities and the array of specific skills required for each responsibility (see Figure 1). The Annex to this report contains a copy of the complete questionnaire.

The PARCS questionnaire divided the skills a protected area manager needs to meet the job's responsibilities into knowledge skills, mental skills, and social skills, as follows:

• Technical
• Management
• Planning
• Legal
• Policies and procedures
• Finance and accounting

• Comprehension
• Problem analysis
• Creativity
• Evaluation

• Oral communication
• Written communication
• Working with others

Figure 1. The Layout of the Questionnaire

 

Main Divisions of the Job	Knowledge Skills	Mental Skills	Social Skills
Ensure availability of a competent and well-motivated staff.
Ensure appropriate infrastructure within budget.
Ensure financial and accounting integrity of the protected area.
Ensure development and achievement of tactical plans and budgets and contribute to protected area strategic planning.
Ensure that all activities within the protected area comply with laws and regulations.
Ensure optimum levels of visitor satisfaction.
Ensure agreed intervention programs are completed to budget and timetables.
Ensure harmonious relationships with neighboring communities.
Be aware of research activities and progress against plan.
Represent the protected area and its interests in public meetings.
Ensure an appropriate balance between resource conservation and use in the protected area.
Training Received

The questionnaire's format allowed protected area managers to compare outside assessments of the skills their jobs require with their own perceptions of the skills required and to indicate what skill levels they believed themselves to possess. Supervisors, research officers, and other relevant individuals also assessed managers' skill levels, which gave the project the ability to cross-check the data collected.

The next step was to determine instances in which the skill levels required exceeded the skill levels managers had actually attained, indicating a training need. The questionnaire's format allowed the PARCS team to extract, compare, and analyze data across and within the three regions of Africa. The questionnaire also collected qualitative data, including the training managers had received, their facility with local languages, and their computer skills. Workshops and one-on-one discussions augmented the information the questionnaire captured.

Because the assessment strategies were developed in concert with the appropriate authorities in each country, the methods for acquiring information varied from country to country (see Boxes 1,2, and 3 for descriptions of the needs assessments in Malawi, Congo, and Uganda).

A strength of the training needs assessment is that it is not just a means of gathering information but can also be used as a training tool in and of itself. The process of leading a protected area manager through the questionnaire often leads to stimulating discussions about important issues in protected area management. Each participant was allowed to keep a copy of the questionnaire so that he or she can refer back to it and even use it to guide future work. Many protected area managers reported that the questionnaire influenced the way they perceive their jobs and their role in the effective management of their area.

 

Box 1. Michael Dyer, Regional Manager for Southern Africa, on the Training Needs Assessment in Malawi Malawi was the first of the PARCS countries in which the questionnaire was tested, and there was a good reason for that. I had previously worked in Malawi's Department of National Parks and Wildlife for three years, so we predicted that getting PARCS underway there would be simple and straightforward. That, in fact, proved to be the case. Testing the questionnaire under field conditions was important. We needed to find out how easy or difficult it was for respondents to understand what the questionnaire was trying to achieve and whether there were any serious omissions in the array of data needed to fully address the assessment's objectives. Since I was familiar with Malawi's protected area system and knew some of the managers personally, I decided to interview all respondents individually and to be present while they completed their questionnaires. I visited all five national parks and two of the four game reserves to interview protected area managers and, where possible, research officers. At each interview I explained that the information given would be treated confidentially and would be pooled to indicate general trends in training needs rather than the training needs of individuals. I had impress upon the participants that they would not benefit in any way by inflating their skill levels and that deflating their skill levels would not bring them extra training. I also had to allay respondents fears that if they indicated low skill levels the information would be used against them. Each interview, including questionnaire's completion and a post-questionnare discussion, took between one-and-a-half to two hours. The interviews were significant since this was the first time in many of the respondents' careers that they had undertaken any form of self-evaluation. The questionnaire helped respondents realize that their responsibilities are enormous and extend far beyond their often casually defined job descriptions. Looking description set out in the questionnaire also prompted many respondents to wonder if different countries place different emphases on protected area management; they thought that Malawian protected area managers could benefit from meeting and exchanging views and experiences with colleagues in the region. Interestingly, the respondents were less concerned about what was going on in the most "different" protected areas, such as the lowland forests of Zaire or Gabon, and most interested in what was going on in areas in Zambia and Mozambique which they perceived as similar to those under their responsibility. All respondents felt that their job demanded formal training in the form of a university degree or a certificate or diploma from a wildlife training institute such as the College of African Wildlife Management at Mweka. However, they showed no hesitation in acknowledging that on-the-job training was more useful once they were in the field. They felt that the authorities did not pay enough attention to their "professional development" and should establish regular in-service training. I was gratified that the individual interviews produced such consistent views. Although a workshop approach might have produced the same outcome, participants might not have been so forthcoming in the presence of their colleagues.

THE TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES ASSESSMENT

A less structured assessment of training opportunities complemented the training needs assessment. The PARCS team conducted surveys to learn more about the training protected area managers currently receive and to identify potential sources for further training. The survey asked institutions that currently provide training to identify the technical fields they cover, length and frequency of programs, degrees conferred, admission requirements, pedagogical methods, number of students, and number of trainers. The team also collected evaluations and reports on the training sources.

In some countries, the PARCS team sought alternative sources of training that could address the needs identified. They took special pains to identify training sources that are cost-effective, efficient, local, culturally sensitive, and appropriately scaled. The team explored sources such as professional associations, employers' associations, consulting firms, universities, trade associations, accounting firms, government institutions, tour and travel companies, hotels and hotel training schools, national institutes of management, law societies, and business management institutes. They asked each source whether it was able to provide in-service training to protected area managers and whether it would be interested in doing so.

CHAPTER III
TRAINING NEEDS

The assessment included more than 200 protected area managers working for 20 protected area authorities in 16 countries. The project carried out in-depth assessments using site visits and the complete PARCS methodology in 13 countries. The project also conducted limited assessments in two additional countries, using selective questionnaire mailings, telephone interviews, axid literature searches to collect baseline data. Finally, only a training opportunities assessment was conducted in one country. See Figure 2 for a complete illustration of the countries included in the assessment.

The training needs assessment derived its data primarily from the questionnaire and interviews. The PARCS team extracted quantitative data from questionnaire responses and used Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), PC Version 4, to analyze the information. Qualitative data from the interviews supplemented the quantitative findings. Table 1 shows the number of questionnaires participants completed in each country.

JOB DESCRIPTION

One of the first questions posed to protected area managers was whether they would change, add, or delete any of the responsibilities outlined in the questionnaire's model job description (see Figure 1). Protected area managers across Africa generally agreed that the job description reflected their actual activities. Managers in some countries, however, noted variations in roles and responsibilities.

In Botswana, for example, the Department of Wildlife and National Parks is set up in such a way that protected area managers in the Division of National Parks and Reserves focus less on management, conservation, research, and utilization than their colleagues in other countries. Because the department assigns these responsibilities to other divisions such as the Division of Wildlife Management and Utilization and the Division of Research, Botswana's protected area managers are responsible for visitor management and not much else.

Table 1. Number of Questionnaires Completed by Country

 

Eastern Africa

Central Africa

Southern Africa

Ethiopia	13	Burundi	11	Botswana	11
Kenya	37	Cameroon	7	Malawi	16
Somalia	4	Congo	29	Zambia	8
Tanzania	46	Rwanda	5	Zimbabwe	12
Uganda	83	Zaire	16
In Mozambique, a limited assessment involving interviews only was conducted. In South Africa, only training opportunities were surveyed.

In Ethiopia, the main function of protected area authorities is maintaining the natural environment so it can support its human population. Although the country considers tourism a welcome by product of conservation, it is not a high priority and is not well-developed. As a result, Ethiopia's protected area managers did not all agree that ensuring visitor satisfaction should be considered a main division of their jobs.

In Central Africa, protected area managers expressed a similar concern. Although managers in this region generally take on the whole array of responsibilities outlined in the questionnaire, not all protected areas have tourism programs. Many of the managers from areas that rarely receive visitors consequently felt that providing tourist services should not be part of their job description.

DEDICATION

The assessment revealed that protected area managers across Africa take their jobs seriously. They work hard to instill a good work ethic and a commitment to conservation in their staffs. They also make concerted efforts to encourage positive attitudes toward local communities (see Box 4).

Protected area managers use a wide variety of skills. Many are highly competent in the technical skills needed for wildlife management. Some have also acquired specialized skills such as finance and accounting or extension techniques for working with communities.

Most speak local languages. This is no small feat since Africa boasts an enormous number of local languages. Cameroon alone is home to more than 200 languages. Protected area managers are increasingly involved in community issues, often resolving conflicts between protected areas and their neighboring communities. As a result, communicating effectively in local languages is an increasingly important skill.

 

Box 4. Attitude Responses Protected area managers must be leaders who encourage their staffs to work as teams and to take their own role in protected area management seriously. Therefore, the assessment asked protected area managers how they instill a good work ethic, a commitment to conservation, and positive attitudes towards local communities in their staffs. Protected area managers use the following techniques to instill a good work ethic: Acting as an example of hard work and dedication; Referring to administrative regulations concerning conduct during staff meetings and seminars; Giving staff the training and tools they need to perform efficiently; and Acknowledging good work and constructively criticizing bad work. Protected area managers use the following techniques to instill a commitment to conservation: Conducting regular refresher courses on conservation ethics to emphasize conservation's value; Showing dedication to national, regional, and local conservation objectives; Participating in conservation related activities with school groups and wildlife clubs; and Emphasizing conservation's importance to human needs. Protected area managers use the following techniques to instill positive attitudes toward local communities: Accepting the validity of community participation in protected area management; Maintaining dialogue with local communities and getting staff involved in keeping communities up-to-date on developments in the area's conservation; Seeking ways to provide tangible benefits to communities without jeopardizing conservation objectives; and Listening to community residents and demonstrating a willingness to understand their problems.

AREAS OF WEAKNESS

While Africa's protected area managers tend to be hard working and skilled, they lack specific skills in many areas. The PARCS project first assessed areas of weakness in terms of the main divisions of a manager's job (see Figure 1). The project found that most managers felt weakest in three areas:

• Implementing intervention programs, such as controlled burning, wildlife management and control, and vegetation management;
• Ensuring visitor satisfaction, such as managing and controlling tourist activity and developing sustainable tourism programs with minimal environmental impact; and
• Promoting conservation in local communities, such as working with local communities to promote sustainable natural resource management and resolving conflicts between protected areas and local communities.

See Figure 3 for maps showing each country's highest priority training needs by main job divisions.

Implementing Intervention Programs

That implementing intervention programs emerged as a weakness came as quite a surprise. The PARCS team had assumed that protected area managers would be well-versed in such activities since they are part of classic wildlife training. The team had predicted that managers would have more trouble in emerging areas such as community-based conservation, since they are far less likely to have received training in such areas.

According to protected area managers, however, intervention is a growing concern. As the number of people living in communities around protected areas increases in many countries, animals and humans interact more frequently. Managers are therefore having to solve wildlife problems more frequently.

Malawi is a case in point. A lack of effective buffer zones means that cultivation is edging right up to park and reserve boundaries. Animals, including birds, are constantly venturing across protected area boundaries onto community farmland. As humans and animals interact with greater regularity, protected area managers must cope with problems such as crop damage and attacks on humans more and more often. These problems are not unique to Malawi. Protected area managers across the continent face similar problems.

Because animal interventions affect people's lives and livelihoods, they often require sensitive solutions. Protected area managers must often refer the problems to central headquarters. Consequently, protected area managers also typically lack the opportunity to build the analytical skills they need to handle these problems themselves.

Ensuring Visitor Satisfaction

Most African nations recognize that a well-run tourism industry can generate significant revenue. Hence, many countries are rapidly trying to expand their tourism sectors. Cameroon, for example, has made a big effort to expand what is already a relatively well-developed tourism industry. In Uganda, the industry is rebounding now that the government has restored political and economic stability.

As a result, ensuring visitor satisfaction is fast becoming one of protected area managers' key concerns. In countries where the tourism industry is growing or is expected to grow, protected area managers rate competency in accommodating tourists as a very high priority. Managers in these countries report a great deal of interest in building their capacity to handle the new responsibilities associated with accommodating visitors and managing visitor services. In countries with long traditions of tourism, however, managers are better prepared for tourism management. Managers in Kenya and Zimbabwe, for example, do not identify tourism as a priority training need.

Promoting Conservation in Local Communities

Across Africa, skills related to community-based conservation emerged as a high priority training need. As more and more protected area authorities engage in community-based conservation activities, more managers need training. In Uganda, for example, the country's stabilization and economic growth mean that protected area authorities are able to fulfill their mandates more often and more comprehensively. As a result, managers have a growing awareness of the need to integrate resource conservation and community use.

As Table 2 indicates, most of the protected area management authorities that participated in the PARCS assessment engage in community conservation activities at some level. Some have initiated pilot activities in community conservation. Others have established community conservation services. Still others have entities outside of the protected area authority that implement community-based conservation activities.

A few countries did not consider training in community conservation a priority. Burundi, for example, has the most progressive community conservation service among the central African countries participating in the assessment. Burundi's protected area managers, therefore, have already acquired skills in this area through on-the-job training and actual experience with community- based work.

Zimbabwe is another country that did not rank community conservation as a high priority training need. Under its Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), district councils have the authority to manage wildlife on communal lands. Community-based conservation, therefore, is outside the direct purview of protected area managers.

Table 2. Community Conservation Activities

 

Country	No Community Conservation Activities	Pilot Activities in Community Conservation	Community Conservation Service	Community Conservation by External Agency
EASTERN AFRICA
Ethiopia
Kenya
Somalia
Tanzania National Parks
Tanzania Wildlife Division
Uganda Forestry Department
Uganda Game Department
Uganda National Parks
CENTRAL AFRICA
Burundi
Cameroon
Congo
Rwanda
Zaire
SOUTHERN AFRICA
Botswana
Malawi
Mozambique
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Authorities are named if more than one was assessed in a given country.

Laws and Regulations

Regional variations appeared as protected area managers ranked their weaknesses. Managers in eastern and southern Africa, for example, felt confident about their ability to ensure that all activities within their protected areas comply with laws and regulations. Managers in central Africa, however, ranked compliance ahead of community conservation as a major weakness. Because protected area authorities in this region provide inadequate briefings on regulations, managers often do not know the regulations and therefore find it difficult to enforce them. Learning what the laws and regulations are and how to enforce them is a top priority for managers in this region.

Individual countries also had specific weaknesses. The Uganda Forestry Department, for instance, is changing its emphasis from plantation forestry to nature conservation. This shift will result in new zoning plans for the forest reserves and changes in access and concession rights. Protected area managers in the Uganda Forestry Department, therefore, ranked training in these new laws and regulations as a top priority.

Finance and Accounting

Interestingly, when protected area managers looked at main divisions of the job, they did not identify finance and accounting as an area of greatest weakness. Many authorities hire junior wardens specifically to work on accounts. As we will see in the next section, however, protected area managers do need skills in finance and accounting for many other parts of their job. When specific skill needs were assessed, the team found managers lacking in these skills.

The assessment examined a broad range of skills that help protected area managers fulfill their various job responsibilities. A summary of the findings by skill type follows.

KNOWLEDGE SKILLS

Knowledge skills include the ability to handle technical, management, and legal activities. The assessment found that protected area managers across the continent have priority training needs in the following knowledge skills:

• Skills associated with policies and procedures such as knowing national and institutional policies and procedures for protected areas, and visitor policies and procedures;
• Planning skills such as knowing how to develop staff plans and timetables, long- and short-term visitor plans, job plans, and community conservation plans; and
• Financial and accounting skills such as community finance and fund disbursement.

See Figure 4 for maps showing each country's highest priority for training in knowledge skills.

Policies and Procedures

Policies and procedures vary from one country to another and from one protected area to another. Senior decision-makers are usually responsible for developing an organization's policies and procedures. Nevertheless, protected area managers need to be fully aware of the many policies and procedures that affect the management of their protected areas.

Policies and procedures are changing rapidly in many countries, creating uncertainty among protected area managers about which rules they must follow. Uganda National Parks, for example, recently devolved major responsibility to its wardens in charge of national parks. With this new responsibility come many new policies and procedures. Similarly, Kenya Wildlife Service is undertaking a major development project that is continuously prompting new policies and procedures.

Even when policies and procedures remain unchanged, they may not be clearly articulated or readily accessible in a handbook or manual. When handbooks are available, they are sometimes out of date.

Planning Skills

Effectively managing a protected area authority requires many levels of planning, ranging from strategic planning at the headquarters level to day-to-day planning at the park level. In many protected areas, however, managers see planning as a separate activity undertaken by a discrete staff section. This perception is changing in many places, however, as authorities delegate more and more planning responsibility to managers. In both Tanzania Wildlife Department and Tanzania National Parks, for example, separate planning units handle planning but protected area managers help them develop management plans.

Many authorities do not plan systematically. Few protected areas have management plans, even though authorities could create such plans without a major financial commitment. Authorities that do develop plans often confuse plans and wish lists, which leads to disappointment when these plans are not achieved because of lack of funds or other reasons. In addition, authorities rarely assess their progress against their plans or seek feedback that could make future plans more realistic. Despite this pattern of poor planning, protected area managers recognize the value of good planning and want to develop their skills in this area.

Financial and Accounting Skills

Because staff at headquarters usually set budgets, protected area managers do not typically participate in major budgetary and financial allocation processes. Protected area managers often have financial and budgetary responsibilities specific to their own protected areas, however; thus they did indicate a need for boosting these skills.

Many protected area authorities use a mixed budgeting system. Central funds cover expenses like salaries and vehicles. The protected area's operating budget, which the protected area manager manages, covers other expenses. Until recently, protected area managers did not enjoy large operating budgets. As many authorities expand these budgets, however, managers are questioning their financial and accounting skills. The Kenya Wildlife Service's new development program, for example, significantly 'increases park wardens' operating budgets to allow them to undertake planned activities. The program stresses the importance of good financial control, and Kenyan wardens consequently indicate a need for further training in this area.

Other trends underline the need for financial training. Tracking the benefits, whether financial or in-kind, that parks share with local communities is essential for authorities like Tanzania National Parks and Kenya Wildlife Service that hope to show the positive impact wildlife and protected areas can have on neighboring communities. As activities like benefit-sharing continue to spread, authorities will increasingly call upon protected area managers to track these transactions.

Protected area managers across Africa recognize that computers could enhance the speed and efficiency with which they track budgets and financial transactions. Nevertheless, the assessment found that few managers actually have computer skills. Few even have access to computers unless they are associated with a project that makes a computer available.

Technical Skills

For protected area managers in central Africa, training in technical skills emerged as the third highest priority, above finance and accounting. Managers need technical skills for interventions, visitor management, community conservation, legal and regulatory compliance, and resource conservation. Although Francophone Africa's primary wildlife management training institute—the Ecole Des Spécia1istes de la Faune in Garoua (EFG), Cameroon—emphasizes technical skills rather heavily, it does not cover some skills, such as community conservation and visitor services, at all. Moreover, many central African managers have not even attended EFG.

MENTAL AND SOCIAL SKILLS

In addition to knowledge skills, the assessment examined mental skills such as problem analysis and comprehension as well as social skills such as oral and written communication. The greatest weaknesses lay in the following areas:

• Creativity such as developing options to achieve plans and budgets in light of changing circumstances and designing or adapting interventions to meet specific needs;
• Problem analysis such as determining the causes of poor staff performance, failure to achieve goals or keep budgets, or deviation from the intended results of interventions; and
• Evaluation such as evaluating staff performance and determining why certain initiatives have succeeded or failed.

See Figure 5 for maps showing each country's highest priority for training in mental and social skills.

One of the PARCS assessment's key findings is that centralized decision-making limits the authority of protected area managers in many countries. Many countries are now starting to reverse this tendency toward centralized decision-making. As staff at headquarters devolve more and more decision- making responsibility to protected area managers, the need for additional training in problem-solving skills is increasing.

Unsurprisingly, protected area managers ranked creativity, problem analysis, and evaluation as priority training needs. As their responsibilities increase, managers need to learn how to understand the causes of problems, develop and implement solutions, and evaluate the effectiveness of their actions. The assessment found that protected area managers in all of the countries assessed had only limited recognition that training could enhance these skills.

CHAPTER IV
TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

The PARCS team examined how human resource development is handled by protected area authorities, what institutions generally provide training to protected area managers, and what other sources of training might be tapped.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Ensuring that employees perform their jobs to the best of their abilities is a goal of any well-functioning organization. According to the field of human resource development, an organization can achieve this goal by using a training plan in conjunction with the following tools:

• Job descriptions;
• A training officer; and
• Training records.

A training plan is a structured program that operates on a pre-established timetable to ensure that all staff members receive adequate and appropriate training. Taking into account short-, medium-, and sometimes long-term objectives, a training plan should enable staff to begin their jobs well-prepared, ensure that professional development and refresher courses are offered regularly, and ensure that training programs are monitored and evaluated.

Job descriptions detail the expectations an organization holds for particular positions. Job descriptions should provide enough meaningful information so that job holders and their managers can use them to improve performance and the personnel department can use them to evaluate staff and analyze training needs. Training officers are the individuals within an organization charged with organizing and overseeing staff training. Training records are formal charts listing chronologically and systematically the type of training each staff member has received.

A training plan supported by job descriptions, training officers, and training records enhances an organizations ability to address its staff needs. All too often, Africa's protected area authorities lack these crucial elements. The result is ad hoc training that may or may not meet priority needs. In Uganda, for example, neither Uganda National Parks nor the Uganda Game Department uses a training plan, keeps training records, or allocates funds for training. Neither authority has training officers; deputy directors take responsibility for monitoring training activities. Both organizations recruit graduates from Makerere University as wardens. Yet both organizations rely on external donors to provide scholarships that allow their staff to attend the College of African Wildlife Management (CAWM) at Mweka or receive other types of formal training. Neither organization tracks the funds available for training through donor-supported projects. This situation is typical of most protected area authorities in Africa.

Many protected area authorities, however, are trying to fill these gaps. The Uganda Forestry Department, for example, has a training officer and recently launched a comprehensive in-service training program. Following an organizational restructuring in Tanzania National Parks, the authority charged the director of administration and personnel with the responsibility for training. The authority filled this post for the first time in 1992 and developed a preliminary training plan. The Kenya Wildlife Service has appointed a training manager and developed a training plan; it is now finalizing its job descriptions and establishing a training unit.
Following is an account of where training plans, job descriptions, training officers, and training records were found in the countries assessed. See Table 3 for a tabular breakdown of these findings by country.

Training Plans

The PARCS team found training plans in only one place, a subsection of Uganda's Forestry Department; the Forestry Department recently developed a plan for in-service training in natural forest conservation. Tanzania National Parks has a preliminary training plan. Kenya Wildlife Service and Burundi's Institut National pour L'Environnement et la Conservation de la Nature are preparing training plans. None of the other countries assessed had readily identifiable training plans. In many countries, in fact, even the idea of a training plan was apparently unfamiliar. The ad hoc approach has been acceptable for so long that many authorities can see no other way of training their employees.

Job Descriptions

Protected area authorities across Africa typically do not link training to job responsibilities simply because protected area managers do not have job descriptions. Only the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization, Kenya Wildlife Service, and Uganda National Parks were able to provide job descriptions.

Training Officers

The PARCS assessment found that Burundi, Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya Wildlife Service, Tanzania Wildlife Department, Uganda Forestry Department, Zaire, and Zimbabwe all had training officers. In many cases, however, these training officers merely kept training records and helped teach courses at national wildlife training institutes. Seldom did they implement training plans or design and run in-service training programs.

Training Records

The majority of the countries assessed maintain training records, although these records typically noted only formal training received abroad and not other types of training such as attendance at workshops, seminars, and conferences. Some listed short courses or workshops offered by the department. Cameroon, Congo, Somalia, Uganda Game Department and Uganda National Parks all lacked training records.

SOURCES OF TRAINING
Most of Africa's protected area managers receive some form of pre-service training at a wildlife college or a university followed by on-the-job training. When formal training occurs after recruitment, it typically takes place at wildlife institutions. What follows are brief descriptions of the types of training protected area managers usually receive.

Formal Training

Protected area managers look highly upon training that is certified, or followed by a promotion. Carrying prestige and value, a degree or diploma also makes the recipient eligible for positions not otherwise available. Hence, formal training is the predominant form of training for Africa's protected area managers.

The wildlife institute Anglophone Africans most often attend is the College of African Wildlife Management (CA WM) at Mweka in Tanzania. Most of Malawi's protected area managers, for example, hold CAWM certificates or diplomas. The school Francophone Africans most often attend is the Ecole Des Spécialistes de la Faune in Garoua (EFG), Cameroon. In Zaire, for example, all protected area managers in the field have attended EFG. (Boxes 5 and 6 describe CAWM and EFG in greater detail.)

Botswana's protected area managers train at the Botswana Wildlife Training Institute (BWTI) at Maun. Established in 1979, BWTI provides pre-service and in-service training programs for all categories of staff. Zimbabwe's protected area manager recruits train at the Natural Resources College at Mushandike Sanctuary. Initially appointed to the rank of ranger, graduates may work their way up the hierarchy.

Many protected area managers receive a university education as well as basic training at wildilfe training institutes. In central Africa, a number of protected area managers hold university degrees. Although most of these protected area managers hold degrees from universities within their own countries, some are from universities in Europe, Russia, or the United States.

In southern Africa, protected area managers are increasingly seeking university training. In Malawi, for example, graduates of CAWM assume the rank of assistant protected area manager. They can become professional wildlife officers only if they obtain university degrees. The Zambian National Parks and Wildlife Service is considering the possibility of recruiting university degree holders, placing them in premanagerial positions, and sending them to CAWM for graduate wildlife diplomas.

This move toward university training is consistent with the trend toward "professionalizing" the post of protected area manager that is occurring in such countries as Zambia and Malawi. Authorities in these countries feel that having degreed protected area managers creates opportunities for exchange between research and management units since research officers almost always have degrees. They hypothesize that as management staff get more experience with research procedures, their understanding of protected area management will improve.

Table 3. Training Components Identified During the PARCS Assessment

The pattern is the same in eastern Africa. Most protected area authorities in this region want their protected area managers to have university degrees. They believe that people with degrees are more skilled and more able to bring sound thinking to their work. This trend encourages protected area managers who lack degrees to pursue further studies. Unfortunately, many of the undergraduate courses offered are not directly relevant to wildlife management. Protected area managers must usually travel outside the region to find appropriate courses. Only at the graduate level can managers find applied courses that cover relevant topics and provide intellectual rigor. Because graduate-level courses require an undergraduate degree, protected area managers can find themselves undergoing a two-year diploma course and a three-year undergraduate course before finally becoming eligible for a two-year graduate-level program. Undertaking this training requires a huge commitment of time and money and takes managers out of the field for many years.

On-the-Job Training

On-the-job training includes both trial-and-error learning and advice, recommendations, and instructions from colleagues and superiors. Although on-the-job training is informal and unstructured, it can be an important method of skills acquisition, especially for protected area managers with six to ten years of job experience. Almost all protected area managers mentioned that on-the-job training contributed significantly to their level of skill.

In-Service Training

In-service training can help consolidate job experience and provide an opportunity to train staff in skills they will need in the future. Given the emphasis on formal training, however, protected area authorities do not take full advantage of workshops, seminars, conferences, and other forms of in-service training.

Protected area authorities in Africa generally do not plan, execute, or program any training for their staff. In many cases, in-service training is lacking due to the absence of a departmental training officer; in other cases, the lack is due to the absence of training plans.

Closely tied to donor assistance, most training is opportunistic and ad hoc. This approach has become entrenched in the thinking of many authorities. As a result, it is hardly surprising that most protected area authorities have not established effective in- service programs.

However, in-service training does exist on the continent. The Uganda Forestry Department, for example, provides structured in-service training programs. The training involves workshops and seminars as well as short courses at Nyabyeya Forestry College. The training's primary purpose is to help Forestry Department staff shift from a traditional plantation and extraction orientation to a conservation and sustainable use orientation.

The training focuses on skills in such areas as census and inventory techniques and forest management plans. Target groups include forest guards, forest officers, district forest officers, and headquarters staff.

South Africa has offered in-service training to its protected area managers for several years (see Box 7). In addition, the country is to establish a wildlife management institute that would provide hands-on, practical training in applied resource management. Initially managers already in service would receive the training.

Other countries are now in the process of establishing in-service training programs. Burundi, for example, is developing in-service training for guards and other lower-level field staff and hopes to extend training to managerial-level field staff.

In Botswana, a recent evaluation called for a complete restructuring of the pre-service and in-service training provided by the Botswana Wildlife Training Institute. This restructuring will help the Department of Wildlife and National Parks address the training needs associated with its expanded mandate to implement national policies relating to wildlife, conservation, and tourism. Although all categories of protected area staff will eventually benefit from the institute's training, the initial emphasis will be on training new members of the department.

The Kenya Wildlife Service is establishing an in-service training program based at the Naivasha Wildlife Training Institute. The primary goals of the new program are to familiarize protected area managers with the Kenya Wildlife Service's Policy Framework and Development program and to teach new skills in areas such as community conservation and annual planning. Kenya Wildlife Service is also trying to develop a monitoring and evaluation system to assess the trainings efficacy (see Box 8).

Contribution of Different Types of Training to Managers' Skills

The PARCS assessment revealed that most protected area managers see formal training as away of significantly improving their abilities. They also consider on-the-job training as a way to contribute significantly to their performance.

Table 4 shows the types of training that protected area managers said contributed to their skills base. The percentages show how strongly the managers thought each type of training helped. As Table 4 shows, most protected area managers consider formal wildlife training institutes to be the most important source of skills. They rarely saw in-service training as contributing significantly. In fact, Table 4 may even overrepresent the amount of in-service training offered since respondents marked in-service training even if they only received such training once. Even when in-service training is offered, only sometimes do managers say that it contributed significantly to their skills. This finding probably reflects the quality of current in-service training.

Despite protected area managers' limited experience with in-service training and their strong preference for formal training, they widely acknowledge that in-service training is an appropriate way to gain practical skills and fill gaps in knowledge. They also recognize that merely attending workshops and seminars does not make them good managers. Protected area managers want training opportunities to be carefully tailored and sequentially structured so they can build their skills in a logical manner. The assessment found that attitudes toward different types of training change over time. New recruits with formal training, for example, often said that their formal training contributed most to their skill levels. Managers with six to ten years of experience report that on-the-job training has helped them most. Although this finding is particularly pronounced for mental and social skills, it is true for knowledge skills as well. As long-serving managers move into more senior roles, they require new skills and updated knowledge in a variety of technical areas. Currently they have to draw heavily from the formal training they received at the start of their careers. The PARCS project identified a need for timely intervention for protected area managers reaching this stage of their professional development.

Table 4. Contribution of Training Types to Knowledge Skills

POTENTIAL TRAINING OPPORTUNITI ES

A fundamental hypothesis underlying the PARCS project is that training does not necessarily involve tremendous amounts of time or money. This is especially true of in-service training, which upgrades and reinforces existing skills over the course of a career. The PARCS team discovered many untapped sources of training in the countries assessed. Table 5 outlines the types of untapped training sources the project team uncovered.

In many cases, the team identified specific sources of training and explored the possibilities for tapping them. In Congo, for example, the project found a number of people with expertise in the legal aspects of protected area management. Under PARCS Phase II, these people will develop a manual explaining international and national laws concerning natural resources and including specific do's and donts for protected area managers. Since 78 percent of Congolese protected area managers identified a training need in more than 60 percent of the questions asked about legal skills, a manual like this should be an important resource. And since most of Francophone Africa's laws regulating natural resource use and protection are based on the French legal system, the manual could probably be adapted for use in a number of central African countries. Box 9 delineates other concrete suggestions that emerged from the assessment of training opportunities in eastern Africa.

The project team also sought ways that authorities could meet training needs on a regional basis. For example, southern Africa contains several key wetland areas—Kafue, Begweulu, Okavango, Zambezi Floodplain, Elephant Marsh, and Lake Chilwa—all of which have different ecological, economic, and sociological conditions. The PARCS regional manager for southern Africa suggested that Zambia could possibly serve as a center for training in wetlands conservation, with protected area managers from throughout the region attending specially designed courses at Kafue or Lochinvar.

Phase II of the PARCS project is continuing the search for relevant training opportunities to meet identified needs.




Table 5. Training Opportunities

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

The PARCS assessment supported many commonly held assumptions about the status of protected area management in Africa. It decidedly refuted others. The assessment's findings and the specific concrete recommendations they lead to are articulated below.

THE FINDINGS

The findings are clustered around four basic hypotheses that underpinned the assessment.

The Job

Hypothesis: That protected area managers' jobs are becoming increasingly complex, requiring proficiency in an array of diverse skills.

Finding: The assessment confirmed that protected area managers' jobs involve a high degree of complexity. The assessment found that protected area managers need to be spokespersons for the interests of protected areas. They need to understand the needs, cultural practices, and rights of communities bordering protected areas. They need to interact effectively with communities surrounding protected areas and, in many cases, work with residents on conservation and development activities. They need to maintain a comfortable, safe environment for tourists and ensure that the monies generated by tourism are collected and accounted for responsibly. They need to be able to manage their staffs, enforce laws, provide input on plans and policies, and help implement those plans and policies. And, of course, they need a whole range of scientific and technical skills to sustain the natural resources they are charged with protecting

Training Needs

Hypothesis: That the training protected area managers receive does not cover the breadth of skills required in their jobs.

Finding: The assessment found that protected area managers have not attained necessary skill levels in a number of key areas. Surprisingly, many are not even comfortable with their ability to perform basic wildlife management interventions. In addition, protected area managers need skills in many new areas to help them cope with emerging areas of responsibility, such as community conservation and tourist services. Specific skills managers lack include knowledge of policies and procedures, planning skills, and financial and accounting skills. Formal wildlife management training programs do not typically cover these areas, but they are becoming increasingly important as protected area authorities devolve responsibility and decision-making to the field level. Protected area managers also feel that their problem-solving skills are inadequate. This inadequacy may be traced to the lack of decision-making autonomy protected area managers have long experienced.

Current Training Opportunities

Hypothesis: That training must be revamped to meet current needs.

Finding: Protected area authorities and managers still see formal training methods as the optimum source of training. However, traditional training institutions and programs in Africa generally have not kept pace with the increasing demands of protected area managers' jobs. The inadequacies of traditional training range from the slow and limited adaptation of curricula to evolving needs to shortages in funding, insufficient staffing, and the limited amount of practical, hands-on training. Nevertheless, both the College of African Wildlife Management (CAWM) at Mweka and the Ecole Des Spécialistes de la Faune in Garoua (EFG) have reviewed their curricula and appear poised to revamp their programs to reflect the changing realities of protected area management.

Potential Training Opportunities

Hypothesis: That new training sources are available to be tapped.

Finding: In many countries, moves are underway to train more professionals at universities, to utilize more recently established national training institutions, and to tap training opportunities in South Africa. The assessment found that numerous other potential sources of training, however, are going untapped. These sources include local industries, other government departments, and local experts in specific fields.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Training in most countries follows a basic pattern of formal training followed by very informal on-the-job-training. The ethic of training as a process that occurs throughout a protected area manager's professional career has not yet been firmly established within Africa's protected area authorities. Formal training cannot possibly cover everything that protected area managers need to know throughout their careers. As their careers unfold, protected area managers need different skills and different levels of skills. Protected area authorities need a way to recognize and address these evolving needs. Thus far they generally have not taken on the responsibility for institutionalizing plans or processes for maintaining well-trained staffs.

To establish training as a long-term process, protected area authorities must recognize that planning is essential. A key tool is the training plan. A good training plan takes into account short- and medium-term skill-building objectives as well as long-term human resource development objectives. The plan should layout a strategy that enables staff to assume their posts with skills they need to do their jobs and ensures that professional development and refresher courses are offered regularly. Training plans should be linked to an ongoing process of identifying training needs. As the curricula reviews at CAWM and EFG and the PARCS assessment demonstrate, this process can be done relatively easily. The plan should include a way to monitor and evaluate all training programs.

The training plan must be tied to job descriptions. Where job descriptions do not exist, they should be developed. Training officers should implement the plan and maintain training records.

Once a training plan is in place, protected area authorities can begin to develop short courses tailored to the specific needs of their staffs. This training may take the form of courses given by mobile training units, courses given at existing training institutions, or courses given at headquarters when field staff visit the capital. In many cases, it might be possible to transform on- the-job training into in-service training programs that use experienced protected area managers as mentors to younger staff members. Authorities should also explore non-traditional training sources, including the private sector. Although the authority can most easily, efficiently, and cost-effectively organize programs, actual training need not be carried out in the authority or by the authority's own trainers.

To convince field staff that in-service training is useful, authorities must offer some form of recognition to participants. All in-service training programs should include a system of evaluating participation and rewarding excellence. Ideally, in-service training will be linked with improved performance on the job and, hence, to salary increases or promotions.

Of course, even low-cost training does require resources. A good training plan can help protected area authorities lobby for donor support in areas where there are high-priority needs. A training plan can help authorities strengthen their ability to secure funds and use them wisely.

Although this report emphasizes in-service training, it is important to underscore that the value of formal training in preparing individuals for specific positions in the protected area management hierarchy is unquestionable. The problem arises when protected area managers work for many years without receiving any additional training.

That said, existing training institutions need help in updating their curricula in order to produce graduates who can meet new standards for protected area managers. Institutions, for example, should give much more emphasis in their curricula to balancing the protection and use of natural resources. Course curricula should also help students develop new specialized skills such as those required for tourism, a growing industry throughout Africa. New training should also include the techniques required for developing management plans and strategies for protected areas. All training should encourage practical, hands-on experience.

CLOSING REMARKS

The PARCS assessment has already sparked new thinking about protected area managers' jobs and about how their needs can be assessed and met. In its second phase, PARCS will help protected area authorities implement some of the recommendations outlined above. The PARCS team is working to strengthen the projects role as a catalyst for stimulating ideas and prompting new approaches to training Africa's protected area managers.

Previous Continue