Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
So why do conservation organisations typically measure achievements at the input
or process stage, when we are actually interested in whether the project has been able
to achieve its goal of conserving species? A key reason is that those carrying out
projects know that they can reliably achieve their inputs within a short and specified
timescale, and can show concrete proof of those inputs having occurred (Table 7.1).
Inputs can't be so easily derailed by external events beyond the project's control, and
so the project manager is within their comfort zone in promising to achieve them.
True conservation achievement may well come from a planned set of inputs, but in
reality it may also come from lucky breaks, changes of government, personal con-
nections, favourable weather. Similarly a careful set of inputs may not lead to the
required outputs due to economic or social collapse, political change, disease epi-
demics, etc. It is also likely to take longer than the typical lifespan of a project until
we can be sure that the goal has been achieved. Narrower project outcomes may be
the most we can hope to measure in time for the final report to sponsors.
This is not to say that inputs should not be measured, and targets should not be
set for each stage in the process. Rather that it is important not to get hung up on
inputs, without a clear idea of how these feed through to the conservation goal, and
without thinking about how inputs may need to be altered to meet changing cir-
cumstances. The achievement of the conservation goal is the ultimate mark of
conservation success. All other measures along the way are proxies for conservation
success that primarily show the amount of effort put in.
Ensuring that projects are well thought through at the beginning involves mak-
ing the linkage between goals and inputs explicit, as well as ensuring that the
underlying assumptions are brought out into the open. 'Logframes' (logical frame-
works) are one popular tool for doing this (Sartorius 1996). First used by USAID
in the 1970s, they are now widely used in the development field, and are required
by some conservation funders. They are useful tools for planning, but tend to be
used as a one-off exercise in order to get money at the beginning of a project and an
aide memoire
when writing the final report, rather than as a tool for guiding project
implementation. They also tend to impose quite a linear approach to what should
be a dynamic and adaptive process of responding to threats and opportunities, and
improving management based on experience. A good guide to how to produce a
log frame is in Annex B of IFAD's online guide to monitoring and evaluation
(IFAD n.d.; see Section 7.8).
Table 7.1
The measurability of different stages in a conservation intervention.
Stage
Timescale
Observability
Predictability
Impact
Comfort zone
Inputs
Short
High
High
Low
High
Process
Short-Med
High
High
Low
High
Outcomes
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Goal
Long
Med-Low
Low
High
Low
