Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
A major challenge for ICDPs is to devise systems to collect data system-
atically that show that they have delivered conservation better than doing
nothing (the null hypothesis), or when compared with other conservation
(or development) approaches. ICDPs, especially those set up using devel-
opment assistance funds, were in the past often only required to measure
their activities, such as numbers of meetings held, numbers of people
trained, newsletters produced, study tours completed, accounts produced
on time and audited correctly and so on. Such measurements illustrate
that the project is working according to its schedule and that its activities
are being done. However, this level of measurement does not illustrate
real conservation impact in terms of reducing the threats to the natural
resources within the ICDP area, and does not measure the biodiversity
and societal state of the region before, during and after the project inter-
vention. These fundamental problems are harder to solve. Successful
changes would generally be regarded as a successful 'outcome' of the
project, and much ef ort is now placed on devising monitoring systems to
look at project impact and the achievement of the relevant outcomes.
In addition to assisting project design, the Logical Framework Approach
can also be used to assist in the development of a scheme for measuring
the ef ectiveness of an ICDP. At all levels of the log frame (but especially
at the higher levels of the goal and objectives) the development of meas-
urable indicators of pressure (threat), state (biodiversity and people) and
response (biological and people) would provide a real mechanism to assess
ICDP success. Monitoring of activities and budgets and reports produced
on time and so on, would continue to be important as well, but if conser-
vation success were measured across a wide suite of ICDPs this would
provide the data to answer many currently unanswerable questions.
In addition to ICDPs themselves seeking to measure their conservation
success by looking at how ef ectively they address threats, preserve or
change the biodiversity state, there is also a clear need for multiple ICDPs
to roll up their results into a more formal assessment of the success of the
approach in general. Currently most of the statements of project success
or failure are opinion- or case-study-driven. We are not aware of any study
that uses quantitative data to test the success of ICDPs, when compared
with any other conservation mechanism, either in monetary terms, or in
terms of conservation delivery or livelihood improvements. This lack of
hard data allows considerable unproductive debate to occur.
We believe that monitoring and evaluation schemes that look at con-
servation impact need to be built into every ICDP. For species, surveys of
endemic, rare or focal species can provide the evidence that these elements
of value are maintained, or increased. Satellite, aerial photographic or
ground surveys of habitats (and reserve boundaries) provide an additional
