Evaluating Conservation Projects

Current Approaches, Perceived

Challenges, and Future Directions

The Problem
Despite effort put into conservation, success

at improving state of biodiversity not

widespread:
23% mammals, 46% amphibians, 61% of
reptiles evaluated by IUCN are on their Red
List of threatened species
180 million hectares of forest lost between
1980 and 1995; 12 million ha/yr.

How can evaluation be modified to help

inform and improve conservation projects?

2

Presentation Overview
1. Background
2. Three ideal components for evaluation
3. Current evaluation frameworks used in

conservation LFA, RBM, PCM

4. Analysis of these frameworks with respect to
ideal components
5. Future directions, barriers, next steps

A Paradigm Shift in Conservation

the major limitation of conservation biology:
conservation problems are usually more
social, economic and political than biological.
U.S. trade relations with developing countries,
for example, will have a far greater impact on
biological diversity than will biodiversity
projects funded by USAID.
(McNeely,1989, p. 418; emphasis added).
4

Conservation and Development

Protected
Areas +
Buffer Zones
+ Other
Strategies

Agroforestry
Systems
Biodiversity Conservation

Sustainable
Forest
Management

Community Development

Resource
Management

Education
Programs

Sustainable
Agriculture

The Importance of Evaluation

Conservation/Development projects are
Complex
Dynamic
Interdisciplinary
Long term

Need adaptive management = systematic way

of learning by doing where evaluation is
incorporated throughout the project cycle
6

Ideal Evaluation Components

Ideal/
Evaluation
Components

Integrates socioeconomic with

biological
information

Includes the
perspective of
local community
members

True
participatory
decision making
with local
community
members

Analysis of Evaluation Frameworks

Looking at conservation projects specifically
1.

Inclusion: To what degree are the 3 ideal components of

evaluation being incorporated into these frameworks in
theory and in practice?

2.

Challenges: What are the challenges to integrating these

components in existing frameworks? Is it possible?

3.

Future Directions: How can evaluation of conservation

projects provide better information for project
improvement? What are the barriers?

Main Approaches to Evaluating

Conservation Projects
1. Logical Framework Analysis (LFA)
2. Results-Based Management (RBM)
3. Project Cycle Management (PCM)

Logical Framework Analysis (LFA)

Description

Indicator

Means of
Assumptions
measurement

Goal
Purpose
Outputs
Inputs
Source: Modified from Stem et al. (2005)

10

Results Based Management (RBM)

The Results Chain:

Inputs

Activities

Outputs

Outcomes

Impacts

11

Project Cycle Management (PCM)

Develop
Monitoring
Plan
Implement
Management
& Monitoring
Plan
Analyze data &
communicate
results

START

Develop
management plan
goals, objectives,
& activities
Design a
conceptual model
based on local
site conditions

ITERATE

Source: Modified from Salafsky and Margoluis, 1999

Source: Hockings et al., 2000

12

LFA & Evaluating Conservation Projects

In Theory main criticisms:
Oversimplified and rigid
Focus on measurable indicators
Limits participation when logframe
constructed at proposal stage
In Practice:
Look at 10 GEF funded conservation projects
showed little participation, no account of local
perspectives, and focus on biological
13

RBM & Evaluating Conservation Projects

In Theory main criticisms:
Over-focus on quantitative performance
indicators
Lack of attention to process
Attribution of cause and effect
In Practice:
Report from CIDA (CIDA, 2002) indicates that
RBM in practice keeps control in hands of donors
as opposed to local communities, and CIDA is
reluctant to address qualitative indicators.
14

PCM & Evaluating Conservation Projects

In Theory:
Strength is the iterative cyclical approach
Weakness lies in cost and time required
Margoluis and Salafsky (1998) version less focus
on measurable indicators, more focus on focus
groups, interviews, community involvement
In Practice:
Look at case studies showed very little community
involvement in evaluation in either approach
15

What can be drawn from the analysis?

Evaluation of conservation projects
characterized by:
A heavy emphasis on quantitative biological
indicators
Lack of inclusion of community perspectives in
evaluations
Limited participatory approaches

16

What can be drawn from the analysis?

Degree of difficulty in incorporating 3 components into
frameworks:
Component

LFA

RBM

PCM

1) Integration of social High

information

High

Low

2) Incorporation of
community
perspectives

High

High

Low

3) Participatory
approaches

Low Low Low

17

Future Directions in Evaluation of

Conservation Projects
Need to question appropriateness of LFA and

RBM for informing project improvement

Need to look at PCM as a more useful
approach for learning, with the caveat of:
Shifting away from emphasis on biological
data only
Increasing acknowledgement of importance of
community perspectives
Increasing participatory approaches

18

Future Directions in Evaluation of

Conservation Projects (contd)
How?
Interdisciplinary evaluation teams
Qualitative data collection methods such as
interviews, focus groups, PRA
Flexibility from donors on the evaluation
process
Learning from experience of others
organizations as well as disciplines

19

Barriers
Lack of resources and capacity
Uncertainty about approaches and methods
Resistance to change
Resistance to giving up control
Concern of validity of participatory

approaches

20

Next Steps
Meta-evaluation of evaluation in conservation

projects
Comparison of information gained, participant
satisfaction, and decisions taken amongst the
different evaluation frameworks used
Study of the barriers practitioners face in
implementing these components, and how to
overcome them
Guidelines on how to better incorporate these
three components into evaluation
21

Conclusions

Evaluation of conservation projects can provide

better information to inform project improvement
if they include the three components of:
1.
2.
3.

Integrated socio-economic information

Community perspectives
Participatory approaches

By adapting evaluation tools, approaches and

lessons learned, can learn how a project can
better meet social and biodiversity goals
22

Thank You !

23