The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT): what it measures and how an assessment runs

The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) is a self-assessment questionnaire that measures how well a particular protected area is managed and tracks how that changes over time. Its fourth version, METT-4, released in 2021, is an Excel workbook with 38 questions, most with four answers scored from 0 to 3, alongside sheets for site data, a threat assessment and a table of actions to improve management. The tool's authors stress that its most important output is the list of actions needed to improve management, not the score alone.

What is the METT and who developed it?

In 1999 the World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use set a target of securing 50 million hectares of existing but highly threatened forest protected areas under effective management by 2005. To measure progress, the Alliance published the first version of the METT in 2002: a simple questionnaire built on the management-effectiveness framework of IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas.

Other institutions then took it up, most notably the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and it became the most widely used protected-area management-effectiveness tool in the world, applied in over 5,000 protected areas according to its handbook. In 2020 several of its original authors carried out a complete revision, building on an Excel version developed by the German development bank KfW, and METT-4 was released in 2021 with the second edition of the handbook and a stronger focus on assessing outcomes.

The tool is open source, and its files and handbook are published on Protected Planet, where the latest file is version 4.2.1. The same page offers an Arabic version of the workbook adapted for Jordan, and in 2023 IUCN published an Arabic guideline on evaluating protected-area management effectiveness based on METT-4.

What does the tool measure?

The IUCN framework defines management effectiveness evaluation as the assessment of how well protected areas are being managed, primarily the extent to which management is protecting values and achieving goals and objectives. It rests on a management cycle of six elements, which the parts of the tool cover as follows:

According to its handbook, the METT is stronger at measuring how well management is carried out than at showing whether that management succeeds in conserving nature. METT-4 therefore added questions on threats, connectivity, climate change, carbon capture, ecosystem services, staff security, the conservation status of key indicator species and of habitats, and split the condition of cultural values from that of natural values.

What the tool contains

• Protected-area attributes: name, size, year of establishment, IUCN category, governance type, international designations, staff and budget, the site's main values, and its two most important management objectives.
• Threat assessment: based on a threat classification developed by the Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) and IUCN; for each threat to the main values it rates extent and severity and records the information source and the management response.
• Multiple-choice questions: 38 questions, for each of which assessors choose the answer closest to the site's situation, with a mandatory evidence-and-justification field, a mandatory field for actions to improve management, and the information sources used.
• Dashboard: automatic charts of scores for each framework element as a percentage of the maximum, a summary of threats, and the condition of values, species and habitats.
• Actions to improve management: a table that gathers the actions proposed under each question and assigns each a deadline, a responsible person, others to involve and the budget needed.

How an assessment runs

The handbook summarises best practice as follows:

1. Plan the assessment: review the tool beforehand, assemble the available evidence for each question, and settle training needs, adaptation, timing, scope and verification.
2. Allow enough time: the first METT is likely to take at least a day, probably two; repeat assessments may be a little quicker.
3. Complete every part: including the datasheets and the narrative fields; the electronic version does not let assessors move on until each question is complete.
4. Use quantitative data: wherever available, above all for the outcome questions, such as survey data and patrol data recorded with SMART.
5. Adapt without changing the structure: add local guidance or questions rather than rewording the original questions.
6. Involve rightsholders and stakeholders: the assessment should not be done by one or two people in isolation, but by protected-area staff together with local communities and other parties where possible, working towards consensus.
7. Build capacity: the assessment may be participants' first experience of evaluating management effectiveness, so some training beforehand is advisable.
8. Verify results: through external checks of completed forms or wider field verification.
9. Implement recommendations and share data: through an action plan, and by submitting data to the global database where possible.
10. Repeat the assessment: every few years; ideally the METT becomes part of annual planning, reviewing the actions set twelve months earlier.

How to read the results

The tool calculates the score automatically, and the dashboard shows it as a percentage of the maximum for each element of the framework, revealing where strengths and weaknesses lie. If a question is marked as not relevant to the site, the maximum score is adjusted automatically, and the reason must be recorded. The handbook points to the limits of interpretation:

• The METT was designed to track one site over time and is less suited to comparing different protected areas, because it relies heavily on qualitative findings and assessors' judgement.
• The most useful comparison is with the same site's previous scores, which the tool lets assessors enter alongside the current ones.
• Focusing solely on the score and ignoring the list of actions is one of the most common weaknesses in use, according to the handbook.
• Each score should be read with its evidence field and information sources, which fall into six categories: research and monitoring; planning documents and departmental data; staff experience; external expert opinion; community opinion and traditional knowledge; and other.
• Confidence in the results depends on the quality of the process: how many and how varied the participants were, how complete the narrative fields are, and whether there is an action plan to address weaknesses.

How the tool relates to the management plan

• Objectives anchor the assessment: the attributes sheet asks for the two most important management objectives, which should be in the management plan, at least one with a conservation focus; the rest of the assessment is made against these objectives.
• The management-planning question: covers whether a management plan exists and is implemented, whether formal and approved or less formal and agreed with communities, with additional points on stakeholder involvement in planning, a way to integrate new developments during the life of a plan that often runs five to ten years, and whether monitoring and evaluation results feed into management.
• The regular work plan: a separate question on the work plan, usually annual, that implements the next stage of the management plan.
• Monitoring and evaluation: a question on monitoring management activities and threats, and on linking the results back to management.
• Actions feed planning: the handbook recommends turning the actions table into a work plan soon after the assessment, separating actions that are feasible with current resources, to be written into the current or next work plan, from those that need extra resources, to be included in funding proposals.

In turn, IUCN's management-planning guidelines refer, at the monitoring-and-review step, to the same effectiveness framework, so periodic assessment becomes an input to the decision to review the plan. See the guide to preparing a protected-area management plan.

The international and Saudi context

Goal 4.2 of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas (decision VII/28, 2004) is to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of protected-area management. It asked Parties to evaluate management effectiveness in at least 30% of their protected areas by 2010, include the results in their national reports, and implement the key recommendations as part of adaptive management. Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (2022) calls for the areas it covers to be effectively conserved and managed.

Assessment results from many tools are compiled in the Global Database on Protected Area Management Effectiveness (GD-PAME), managed by UNEP-WCMC and updated monthly alongside the World Database on Protected and Conserved Areas; the METT handbook notes that the CBD mandates UNEP-WCMC to maintain the database and use it for CBD reporting.

In Saudi Arabia, IUCN describes a multi-year technical partnership between its Regional Office for West Asia and the National Center for Wildlife, one component of which is adopting global standards for the governance and management effectiveness of all protected areas in the Kingdom. In June 2024 NCW launched the first supervisory council for the Ibex protected area, with the aim of raising the level of effective management in line with international standards.

Frequently asked questions

Is a METT assessment a self-assessment or an external one?

The METT was designed as a self-assessment by protected-area staff together with stakeholders. It can be accompanied by verification, ranging from external checks of completed forms to field verification.

How long does a METT assessment take?

The handbook estimates that a good METT takes about two days with a team of protected-area staff and stakeholders; the first assessment is likely to take at least a day, probably two.

How often should the assessment be repeated?

The handbook recommends repeating the assessment every few years and, ideally, making it part of annual planning, when the actions identified in the previous assessment are reviewed.

Can METT scores be used to compare protected areas?

The METT was designed mainly to track one site over time and relies heavily on qualitative judgement, so its handbook considers it less suitable for comparing different sites.

Is the METT available in Arabic?

Protected Planet publishes an Arabic version of the METT-4 Excel tool adapted for Jordan, and IUCN published an Arabic guideline on evaluating protected-area management effectiveness, based on METT-4, in 2023.

The Rasmala team's experience

The Rasmala team offers METT management-effectiveness assessments as part of its nature reserve management services, and specialised training courses on management-effectiveness tracking for protected areas and World Heritage sites.

How we can help

• Nature reserve management: management-effectiveness assessment, and turning its findings into changes to the management plan and work plans.
• Environmental management and monitoring: monitoring indicators and field data that support the outcome questions.

Guide to protected-area management plans · Environmental monitoring in Saudi Arabia