Tool 9 - Implementation of Management Measures

1. To assess whether the management plan (or primary planning instrument) is being implemented according to a defined programme of actions.
2. To review whether subsidiary plans and strategies are being effectively implemented.
3. To analyse whether budgets and work plans (annual or multi-year) have been developed based on the programme of actions and/or other management measures included in the management plan and subsidiary plans.
4. To assess what mechanisms, other than the budget and/or work plan(s), are in place to ensure the implementation of the management plan and subsidiary plans and strategies.
5. To identify gaps and challenges with regard to implementing management measures.

Management plans are ineffective if they are not implemented or are ignored in day-to-day operations. Typically, the effectiveness of management plans is evaluated with regard to its content (covered in Tool 6) but less so with regard to the extent to which planned actions are implemented and desired outcomes achieved. Similar shortcomings can be found in the implementation of subsidiary plans and other complementary strategies or instruments (e.g. disaster risk management plan, fire plan, invasive species plan, tourism strategy, business strategy, communication strategy and educational programmes).

Planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation are interrelated and equally important processes of the management cycle. However, at the planning level it is often assumed that once a management plan (or other planning instrument) is prepared and approved, implementation will happen ‘naturally’. This is generally not the case because i) those responsible for implementing the plan may not have been involved in its development and therefore may not feel committed to its implementation; ii) the plan is overly ambitious and resources required to ensure its implementation are insufficient; or iii) circumstances change over time and, if implementation is not closely monitored and the programme of actions adjusted accordingly, it may no longer be possible to adhere to time-frames and achieve desired outcomes. For World Heritage All inherited assets which people value for reasons beyond mere utility. Heritage is a broad concept and includes shared legacies from the natural environment, the creations of humans and the creations and interactions between humans and nature. It encompasses built, terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments, landscapes and seascapes, biodiversity, geodiversity, collections, cultural practices, knowledge, living experiences, etc.   properties or other heritage places with complex governance structures, including where multiple managers are responsible for the implementation of plans, ensuring implementation can be complex and needs effective collaboration.

Regular monitoring of the implementation of the management plan and other planning instruments is, therefore, critical to achieving desired outcomes. This is why Tool 9 can be used every one to two years rather than five to six years (as for the majority of other tools in this Toolkit). Regular monitoring should be incorporated into the development of budgets and work plans (annual or multi-year) to ensure that they are aligned with the content of the planning instruments. If monitoring is not planned for or regularly undertaken, there is a risk that work plans will be developed on an ad hoc basis, which may perpetuate recurrent problems, fail to address challenges that can only be solved through long- term actions and prevent the achievement of desired outcomes.

Planning processes encompass assumptions about the future, and such assumptions involve a degree of uncertainty (particularly in a rapidly changing world). Therefore, regular and continuous monitoring is necessary to collect new information, review and revise previous assumptions and make necessary adjustments and adaptations. The more a management issue is left unmonitored, the more difficult responding to that issue can become. If the adjustments needed are seen as too demanding, people may not even attempt them – for instance, when bureaucratic and administrative procedures to adjust or revise a plan are seen as too complex. In the long run, such difficulties can create an atmosphere of unwillingness to engage in future planning processes.

To help you identify what is working well and what the challenges are with regard to implementation of management measures, Tool 9 is structured around two worksheets:

• Worksheet 9a helps you assess progress in the implementation of the management plan, or other subsidiary plan or strategy, by examining if actions, activities and management measures are being carried out according to projected time-frames. The structure of the worksheet is generic and can be used for different types of planning instruments.
• Worksheet 9b helps you explore broader implementation issues. Structured in the form of a questionnaire, this worksheet serves three main purposes. First, to review how financial budgets and work plans are developed, and whether they are aligned with the desired outcomes and actions identified in the management plan and/or other subsidiary plans. Second, to examine what monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that management measures are being implemented. Third, to examine how unexpected situations and implementation challenges are dealt with.

Tool 9 is structured to suit a ‘typical’ public administration management system and may need to be adapted to suit, for example, a traditional management system.

This worksheet should be used first and foremost to track the implementation of the management plan (or other primary planning instrument) for the World Heritage property A cultural, natural or mixed heritage place inscribed on the World Heritage List and therefore considered to be of OUV for humanity. The responsibility for nominating a property to the World Heritage List falls upon the State(s) Party(ies) where it is located. The World Heritage Committee decides whether a property should be inscribed on the World Heritage List, taking into account the technical recommendations of the Advisory Bodies following rigorous evaluation processes.
When used as a general term, World Heritage refers to all the natural, cultural and mixed properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. or other heritage place. Subsequently, it can be repeated or reapplied for other existing subsidiary plans and strategies specific to the property (see Figure 3.2 illustrating the typical hierarchy of a planning framework). While the worksheet is generic and can be used to assess the implementation of different types of plans, a key objective is to assess the implementation of those plans that are the most important and specific to guiding management at the site level. Repeating the worksheet for other planning instruments will help you to monitor how the implementation of subsidiary plans aligns with the implementation of the management plan and thus strengthens synergies between the different plans.

Worksheet 9a allows you to review and assess each action or management measure specified in the planning instrument and to assign to it a status category (e.g. ranging from ‘ Action A policy, plan, programme or project. has not commenced’ to ‘ Action A policy, plan, programme or project. has been completed’). This will help you to track progress and verify whether actions are being implemented within projected time-frames. Ideally, this type of assessment should be carried out annually, in order to identify as soon as possible whether implementation is progressing as expected and whether adjustments are needed.

The analysis for Worksheet 9a is based on five status categories, which can be revised to suit your needs:

• Action A policy, plan, programme or project. has not commenced.
• Preparatory work required for implementation of action is in progress (e.g. necessary approvals have been obtained but the work itself has not commenced).
• Implementation of the action has commenced.
• Implementation of the action is well under way and substantial progress has been made.
• Action A policy, plan, programme or project. has been completed.

Some actions or activities will take more time than others to be implemented, depending on their complexity, cost and scale. Therefore, the way in which actions are defined is important for tracking progress. For instance, if you define the action as ‘construction of a visitor centre’, the action may take many years and you will categorize the action as having ‘commenced’ or ‘substantial progress’ made for a significant period of time. However, if you divide the activity into more detailed actions (e.g. run architectural competition for visitor centre, complete public tender for construction, complete pre- construction planning and approvals, etc.), this will make it simpler and more informative to monitor implementation.

Overall, this type of analysis will help you identify whether the implementation of some actions is progressing slower than others; and whether the implementation of the overall programme of actions is proceeding too slowly to enable all actions to be completed within an initial projected time-frame. Remember, the aim is to monitor progress regularly and systematically, and to adjust the programme of actions accordingly. With time and experience, fewer adjustments may be necessary. However, it is unrealistic to think that no adjustments will be needed, since the future rarely unfolds as expected or planned for.

The reflection questions below will be most helpful if you repeat the assessment for several planning instruments. The questions will help you cross-reference findings between instruments and identify issues which cannot be addressed by simple adjustments to the time-frame of the programme of actions included in the plans. They may require broader considerations about the existing management system.

Reflection questions:

• Are implemented actions in alignment with the desired outcomes stated in the management plan or other primary planning instrument?
• If implementation is not progressing as planned, what are the main reasons for this? Is the programme of actions too ambitious or based on flawed assumptions about the availability of resources? Or do problems arise from a lack of political will and/or professional motivation to implement the plan? If this is the case, what are the causes?
• If different managers are responsible for the implementation of actions, are those responsibilities stated clearly in the programme of actions?
• If certain actions were outsourced to external contractors, were potential risks identified with respect to the defined time-frame for those actions?
• Was the programme of actions developed with sufficient flexibility to allow for necessary adjustments to be made? If one action does not proceed according to plan, is there a risk that the implementation of other actions may be impacted and/or delayed?
• Are actions commenced only when the necessary resources and conditions are in place, or at least when there is sufficient confidence that those resources will be available when needed? Or is it the case that some actions are commenced but then have to be halted part way through because of a lack of resources?
• Is monitoring the implementation of the plan seen as a high priority? If not, why not? If different managers are responsible for the implementation of actions, does the plan clearly define who is responsible for monitoring its implementation as a whole, or are there mechanisms to coordinate monitoring efforts among managers on a regular basis?
• If implementation is not progressing as planned, is it a relatively simple process to adjust the programme of actions, or does adjustment to the programme of actions require complicated administrative procedures? Could this prevent managers from making such adjustments? If yes, how can the issue be addressed?
• In the event that the programme of actions needs to be adjusted, are there clear policies as to the parameters (e.g. type of activities foreseen, time-frame, costs) that can be altered (and in what order) and those that cannot?
• With regard to the different plans examined using Worksheet 9a, are the time-frames and programme of actions well-articulated and well-aligned? If not, is the implementation of the programme of actions of one or more plans negatively impacting or impeding the implementation of another plan?

Programmes of actions included in different plans should be sufficiently detailed in terms of what actions and activities are to be implemented, who will be responsible for their implementation, when they are to be implemented, what human capacity and financial resources are needed and who will provide those resources. Some management plans may not include a detailed programme of actions, but may require the development of annual work plans. Either way, since most management plans cover multiple years (usually between five and ten), it is unlikely that a single programme of actions can be sufficiently detailed to guide implementation over five years or more. Moreover, many plans include actions that can only be implemented when and if additional resources are made available. This is why many institutions develop short-term work plans (also termed ‘operational plans’ or ‘work programmes’) that detail the actions, activities and tasks that are achievable within identified time- frames and with secured resources. Work plans are usually completed each year once an institution is certain of the resources available and an annual financial budget has been approved.

For World Heritage properties managed mainly by a single institution, the logic and flow of developing the management plan, any subsidiary plans and subsequent work plans is relatively straightforward. However, many World Heritage properties have complex governance arrangements, and implementing multiple plans can be complex. The implementation of those plans is often dependent on multiple managers, which means that each manager may only incorporate in their own work plan the actions, activities and tasks for which they are responsible. This can increase the likelihood that some actions, activities and tasks will overlap unless all managers develop their work plans in collaboration. In addition, in such situations, managers may be responsible for functions beyond the management of the property as a whole, or parts of it. Consequently, the financial budgets and work plans of different managers may not focus exclusively on the management of the property. All these aspects make it challenging to track implementation, unless agreed mechanisms are in place to ensure that tasks are completed, and a single actor is made responsible for overseeing that implementation of the programme of actions.

Worksheet 9b is structured as a questionnaire to help you analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the existing mechanisms available to monitor the implementation of programmes of actions included in different plans – particularly when implementation is dependent on the efforts of multiple managers. The worksheet also provides a number of questions to help you identify whether each programme of actions is adequate to address the factors affecting the property. You should therefore revisit the work undertaken for Tool 2, where you analysed what high-priority actions are needed to address those factors requiring urgent attention.

Finally, Worksheet 9b offers an additional set of questions to help you to examine how unexpected situations and implementation challenges are dealt with. In a complex world shaped by accelerating change and the intensifying impacts of climate change, the future is becoming more and more uncertain. This can make planning challenging. Nevertheless, by considering alternative scenarios, anticipating the unexpected (i.e., by incorporating risk assumptions) and putting mechanisms in place that allow you to adapt quickly, you can be better prepared.

Worksheet 9b should be completed by each manager with primary heritage responsibilities. A series of reflection questions are included below to help you to draw conclusions about implementation issues in the management system for the entire World Heritage property A cultural, natural or mixed heritage place inscribed on the World Heritage List and therefore considered to be of OUV for humanity. The responsibility for nominating a property to the World Heritage List falls upon the State(s) Party(ies) where it is located. The World Heritage Committee decides whether a property should be inscribed on the World Heritage List, taking into account the technical recommendations of the Advisory Bodies following rigorous evaluation processes.
When used as a general term, World Heritage refers to all the natural, cultural and mixed properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. or other heritage place. If the property is managed by a single manager-institution, you do not necessarily need to address the questions; nevertheless, they may trigger useful ideas for your responses to the questions in the worksheet.

Reflection questions:

• Do all managers with primary heritage responsibilities prepare, or contribute to the development of, work plans (annual or multi-year)? If not, does that have negative effects on the implementation of the programme of actions included in the management plan or other primary planning instrument? In particular, does that delay or prevent the implementation of high-priority actions with regard to factors negatively affecting the property?
• Can you identify common oversights and challenges in the way work plans and financial budgets are prepared and how the implementation of actions is prioritized? At the same time, can you also identify good practices that could be shared with other managers facing similar challenges?
• If urgent and potentially detrimental situations arise during the management cycle (e.g. the imminent collapse of a building unless stabilized; or the appearance of an invasive species that, if not eradicated immediately, could pose serious threats) and the manager held responsible for addressing it does not have the financial or human capacity to respond quickly, are there mechanisms in place that allow use of resources from other parts of the management system? Note that this question does not refer to disasters, such as flooding or earthquakes.