Within the framework of the EU4Nature project, the assessment of protected area management effectiveness is being consolidated as a key instrument for improving institutional performance and ensuring the long-term conservation of biodiversity. Through the application of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), the project supports a shift from fragmented and ad hoc assessments toward a structured, periodic, and comparable approach to protected area management.
METT is an internationally recognised tool designed to systematically assess how effectively protected areas are managed in relation to their conservation objectives. It examines core components of management, including the legal and planning framework, institutional capacities, human and financial resources, ecological monitoring, on-the-ground implementation, and stakeholder engagement.
The 2025 METT Assessment Process in 2025
The 2025 METT assessments were built upon a structured preparatory process that included a review of existing documentation and an analysis of results from previous assssment cycles. This process was coordinated with protected area administrations to ensure that data and information were available, consistent, and comparable across sites.
METT assessment meetings with stakeholder participation
The process continued with on-site workshops, during which Regional Administrations of Protected Areas worked jointly with members of Management Committees, including representatives of local government, civil society organisations, tourism operators, and local community stakeholders. These workshops focused on discussion and validation of results, ensuring a shared and realistic assessment of management
effectiveness. At the conclusion of the process, the final assessment results were confirmed with protected area managers and published on the official METT platform: https://akzm.net/mettv4/.
This approach ensured that METT results reflect not only institutional perspectives but also the realities of use, pressures, and management challenges on the ground.
Insights from the 2025 METT Results for EU4Nature Pilot Areas
The 2025 METT results provide an updated snapshot of the current management effectiveness across the ten EU4Nature pilot protected areas. The assessment reveals a differentiated distribution of scores among sites, reflecting varying levels of consolidation in institutional capacity, management processes, and field implementation.
Rezultatet e vlerësimit për 10 zonat pilot të projektit sipas komponentëve
The total METT scores range from still low or moderate levels, indicating a continued need for targeted support, to more consolidated levels of management where institutional structures, processes, and implementation are more stable. These results are not intended to rank performance between sites, but rather to identify where each protected area stands within its management cycle.
Overall, the results indicate a general improvement in management effectiveness, with increases in total METT scores across all assessed sites. The average total score increased from 33.52 to 36.51 points, reflecting gradual but realistic progress over a one-year period, during which deep structural changes are not expected to materialise immediately (see: https://akzm.net/rezultatet-krahasuese-midis-zonave/ ).
Year-to-year comparison of total METT scores
However, a detailed analysis of the METT components shows that this progress is not uniform across all components. The most notable improvements are observed in the operational components of management. On average, Inputs (resources, capacities, and tools) recorded the highest increase, followed by Processes (procedures, enforcement, and institutional functioning) and Outputs. This indicates that interventions designed to strengthen capacities and improve management practices are gradually translating into more structured actions on the ground.
By contrast, the Planning component remains relatively stable, with only minimal fluctuations, confirming that for most pilot areas a basic legal framework is in place, while the planning framework varies across sites. The system’s main challenge is therefore no longer related to the formal protection status, but to the effective implementation and operationalisation of conservation objectives.
The Outcomes component assesses the extent to which protected areas are progressing toward their conservation objectives. In the absence of comprehensive monitoring data for some sites, the assessment relied in part on professional judgement and available knowledge, as provided for under the METT methodology.
This is also reflected in the graphs, where Outcomes scores show greater variability compared to other components. These fluctuations do not necessarily indicate real changes in ecological conditions, but rather reflect data limitations and a more critical interpretation of perceived on-the-ground impacts, particularly in the 2025 assessment, which involved a broader range of stakeholders.
The analysis of results also highlights clear differences between protected areas with a long management history and those that are relatively new. Long-established protected areas, such as Shebenik National Park, Bredhi i Hotovës–Dangëlli National Park, Dajti Mountain National Park, and Lurë–Mali i Dejës National Park, show more stable results across strategic and procedural components, reflecting a higher level of institutional maturity. However, even in these areas, the Outcomes component remains more moderate, indicating that the transition from established capacities and procedures to measurable long-term conservation impact continues to be a challenge.
In relatively newer protected areas, such as Bredhi i Sotirës Natural Park, Zagoria Natural Park, Lugina e Shalës Natural Park, and Porto Palermo Marine Protected Area, the 2025 METT results show greater variability across components. In some cases, improvements in Inputs, Processes, and Outputs are evident,
indicating an active transition from the institutional set-up phase toward practical implementation. In other cases, progress remains slower and uneven, reflecting constraints typical of early management stages, including limited dedicated human and financial resources and the need for stronger inter-institutional coordination.
Case of Vjosa River National Park
The METT results for Vjosa River National Park show an improvement in the total score in 2025 compared to the previous assessment cycle, reflecting changes that occurred during the assessment period. This progress is mainly reflected in Inputs, Processes, and Outputs, linked to the establishment of the new management structure and the operationalisation of implementation mechanisms.
The Planning component remains relatively stable, confirming the existence of a formal management basis, while the Outcomes component remains more moderate. This is consistent with the fact that many management measures are still under implementation and that measurable ecological impact requires time to materialise.
(See: https://akzm.net/parku-kombetar-lumi-vjosa/)
Overall, the METT results for Vjosa document the effects of confirmed structural developments during the assessment period, including strengthened management organisation and the allocation of dedicated resources for the park. METT thus serves as a reference point for tracking management progress and sustainability over time.
A specific case is also the Vromoner Thermal Springs Natural Monument, where METT results reflect structural ambiguity within the Planning component. The absence of clearly defined site boundaries, formalised management objectives, and dedicated staff creates difficulties in establishing a coherent planning–implementation–monitoring cycle.
These ambiguities are reflected in differentiated METT component scores, indicating that the primary management challenges are related to clarifying the planning and institutional framework, rather than to operational implementation.
Understanding Changes Between the Two Assessment Cycles
Comparability between the two assessment cycles is also influenced by the evolution of the assessment process itself. In 2024, the assessment was conducted primarily as a self-assessment by protected area administrations, supported by the project team. In 2025, the process was expanded to include additional relevant actors, including members of Management Committees, local government authorities, and other local stakeholders.
This more inclusive approach increased the rigor and realism of the assessment, particularly for components related to practical implementation and on-the-ground impact. As a result, the observed changes—including moderate increases as well as fluctuations in some components—should not be interpreted simply as linear progress or regression, but rather as the reflection of a more balanced and critical assessment of management effectiveness.
In this context, the primary value of METT lies not only in the score of a single year, but in the establishment of a comparable, multi-year evidence base that enables deeper analysis and informs adaptive management and the prioritisation of future interventions.
Ndryshimet e vërejtura ndërmjet vlerësimeve METT të viteve 2024 dhe 2025 duhen interpretuar në kontekstin e natyrës së mjetit dhe të procesit të ndjekur. METT është konceptuar për të ndjekur progresin ose regresin e menaxhimit në kohë dhe nuk pritet të reflektojë ndryshime të mëdha brenda një periudhe të shkurtër njëvjeçare, veçanërisht për komponentët që lidhen me rezultatet afatgjata të ruajtjes.
Gjithashtu, krahasueshmëria ndërmjet dy cikleve ndikohet edhe nga evolucioni i vetë procesit të vlerësimit. Në vitin 2024, vlerësimi u realizua kryesisht si një vetë-vlerësim i administratave të zonave të mbrojtura, i asistuar nga stafi i projektit. Në vitin 2025, procesi u zgjerua duke përfshirë aktorë të tjerë relevantë, përfshirë anëtarë të Komiteteve të Menaxhimit, pushtetin vendor dhe përfaqësues të tjerë lokalë.
Kjo qasje më gjithëpërfshirëse ka rritur rigorozitetin dhe realizmin e vlerësimit, veçanërisht për komponentët që lidhen me zbatimin praktik dhe ndikimin në terren. Për rrjedhojë, ndryshimet e vërejtura, përfshirë rritje të moderuara, por edhe luhatje në disa komponentë, nuk duhen interpretuar thjesht si progres ose regres linear, por si reflektim i një vlerësimi më të balancuar dhe më kritik të efektivitetit të menaxhimit.
Në këtë kuptim, vlera kryesore e METT qëndron jo vetëm te rezultati i një viti të caktuar, por te krijimi i një baze të krahasueshme ndër-vjeçare, që lejon analizë më të thelluar dhe orienton menaxhimin adaptiv dhe prioritetet e ndërhyrjeve në vijim.