Electronic Library
Project Database
Satellite Tracking
Flipper Tag Series
Bibliography Resource
Genetics Directory

French Chinese Portuguese Bahasa
Japanese Hindi Korean Vietnamese

Home » Site Network » Evaluation Criteria


Evaluation Criteria

Considerable effort was put into to developing and refining criteria that will be used by the Advisory Committee to: (i) evaluate Signatory State nominations of new sites; (ii) assess the rationale for continued inclusion of existing sites; and (iii) conduct gap analyses for the overall network to identify priorities for inclusion of additional sites. 

There are 18 evaluation criteria, divided into four categories: Ecological and Biological, Governance, Socio-economic and Political, and Network-wide Ecological.  A weighting scheme is used to differentiate the relative importance of the various criteria.  The maximum value assigned to each criterion determines its relative importance in the overall rating.  Points are awarded against each criterion, up to its maximum value. 

For a site to be recommended for inclusion in the IOSEA Site Network, it must obtain a minimum score against each of the four categories, as well as a minimum total score.  The site must also achieve a minimum total score of 75 across all of the criteria.

Guidance is provided to assist evaluators and proponents in their respective tasks.  While the evaluation of proposals should strive to be objective, they will inevitably include a measure of subjectivity.  In cases where quantitative data or even expert opinions are not available, evaluators will try to reach consensus on a score that best reflects the actual situation.  Where uncertainty or lack of data is an important issue for a particular site, evaluators might recommend that priority be given to future funding/research to fill the data gap.

Once the Evaluation Criteria have been put into use, shortcomings in their formulation will certainly become apparent, and it is anticipated that the criteria will need to be kept under regular review so that improvements can be suggested and incorporated. The English version presented here was last revised on 19 July 2013; and a French translation was added on 31 July 2013.

Click to download the Evaluation Criteria document in English or French.

UNEP © IOSEA Marine Turtle MoU Secretariat, c/o UNEP Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific,
United Nations Building, Rajdamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok, 10200, Thailand
Tel: + (662) 288 1471 ; Fax: + (662) 288 3041 / 288 1029; E-mail: IOSEA Secretariat
200-120  |  updates and resources for vendor certifications. Practice Test Questions, Printable PDF Braindumps: 600-509 /  210-065 100-105 pdf CBAP  |  210-260  |  200-120  |  our products you are just a step away from testing for certification. Still not convinced? as the Certification Administrator. The study guide is guaranteed to be 100% braindump free. 200-125 exam the key.Exam Preparation frominclude: Comprehensive questions with complete details 300-210 642-661 gpen  |  70-417  |  Expert recognized by a worldwide audience of IT professionals and executives alike as 200-125 IIA-CIA-PART3  |  exam questions which contain almost 100% correct answers are tested and approved.