We consider equity to have three dimensions (see Figure 2):

 Recognition, which is about acknowledging and respecting rights and the diversity of
different actors’ identities, knowledge systems, values and institutions.

 Procedure, which is about actors’ participation in decision making, transparency,

accountability and processes for dispute resolution.

 Distribution, which is about the allocation of benefits across the set of actors and
avoiding or at least reducing negative impacts.

Within each dimension, it identifies a set of priority issues, framed as principles.

Good governance principles outline the issues you should assess, and they define, in broad terms,
a desired high level of governance performance.

With GAPA we have found that it is simply not realistic to try to work with all 11 principles and
therefore we advise site-level actors to prioritise just five good governance principles (Box 2) for
in-depth assessment.

Following this approach, we suggest that all site-level actors prioritise the following core
principles:

Participation (principle 3)
Transparency (principle 4) or accountability (principle 5)
Mitigation of negative impacts (principle 8) or benefit sharing (principle 9).

1. Recognition and respect for the rights of all relevant actors

2. Recognition and respect of all relevant actors and their knowledge, values and institutions

3. Full and effective participation of all relevant actors in decision making

4. Transparency supported by timely access to relevant information in appropriate forms

5. Accountability for fulfilling responsibilities and other actions and inactions

6. Access to justice, including effective dispute resolution processes

7. Effective and fair enforcement of laws and regulations

8. Effective measures to mitigate negative impacts on indigenous peoples and local communities

9. Benefits equitably shared among relevant actors based on one or more agreed targeting options

10. Achievementofconservationandotherobjectives,and
 11. Effective coordination and collaboration between actors, sectors and levels.

Graham et al. (2003) condensed the UNDP criteria to suggest that governance quality can be assessed on
five basic principles (1) legitimacy and voice; (2) direction; (3) performance; (4) accountability; and (5)
fairness.

The dimensions of the good governance of protected areas are defined by seven principles:
Legitimacy, Inclusiveness, Accountability, Performance, Equity, Connectivity (Abrams et
al.,2003; Graham et al.,2003; Lockwood, 2010) and our proposal, the Institutional Sustainability.

Legitimacy: includes characteristics and perceptions related to the acceptance of the authority of
an institution to govern, the integrity and responsibility with which it exercises power and the
credibility and trust that agents have in this. It also includes the authority and representativeness
and consensus orientation (Abrams et al., 2003).

Inclusiveness: refers to the opportunities of the agents to participate in decision-making

processes and actions in an influential manner (Lockwood, 2010).

Accountability: measures the clarity, accessibility and timeliness with which members of the
governing body accept and justify their responsibilities. It also considers the transparency of
the processes (Abrams et al., 2003; Graham et al., 2003; Lockwood, 2010).

Performance: The governance system works if it is able to generate appropriate incentives for
efficient collective action, i.e. to create cooperation strategies between the agents to resolve
conflicts.

Equity: involves equality of opportunity for all men and women to improve their welfare and the
existence of a legal framework to ensure fairness and to defend and regulate those rights. The
decision-making processes are designed and developed with decency, respect for human rights
and without humiliating any of the agents (Graham et al., 2003) is adopted as base the principle
of "do no harm".

Connectivity: measures the communication and coordination in the interactions mainly deriving
from the decision-making processes, between different levels of governance and between the
different actors involved in the protected area and the alignment of priorities, plans and activities
between organizations on governance (Lockwood, 2010).