Download The following document will provide a brief outline of the

Intervention Monitoring Description
DRAFT – for internal use only
In a climate of limited financial resources and demand for increased accountability,
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) have taken on a substantially more important role in
conservation practice. Monitoring can help us understand the benefits and costs of
conservation, what constitutes an appropriate intervention, and the situations and actions
that most likely lead to conservation success. Among the most compelling reasons for a
comprehensive M&E plan is understanding how well a project is working relative to
conservation targets, and under which conditions interventions may succeed or fail.
Conservation International employs a dual approach to monitoring through the Outcomes
Monitoring Support Program (Outcomes Monitoring and Intervention Monitoring). The
following document has been developed to introduce the Intervention Monitoring
Initiative through the broad monitoring activities at CI, the process for implementing it
through Verde Ventures and the GCF, and issues that have been raised with preliminary
implementation.
Monitoring at Conservation International
Monitoring at CI is split into two interrelated spheres: Outcomes Monitoring, which
looks at the status and trends of ‘the universe of conservation’; and, Intervention
Monitoring, which looks at the specific influence of conservation action on our
objectives. Said another way, Outcomes Monitoring tracks the change in status of CI’s
conservation Outcomes - Extinctions Avoided; Areas Protected; and, Corridors
Consolidated. Intervention Monitoring, by contrast, tracks individual actions, their
influence on pressures to our Outcomes, and ultimately Outcomes themselves that are
being addressed at that site. Using the example of species – Outcomes Monitoring
measures global trends in the conservation status of a threatened species. Intervention
Monitoring will follow the plight of a population of that species in a particular area –
through a specific project addressing pressures existing at that site.
There are several compatibility issues that are being worked out between these two types
of monitoring. Necessarily, Outcomes Monitoring requires data from a large number of
individual sites and therefore cannot focus too much time, energy or resources on
individual sites. Conversely, Intervention Monitoring requires more a more in-depth look
at individual sites in order to assess the contribution their action(s) toward objectives. We
describe this as the breadth and depth of monitoring at CI. Both are of immense value to
the conservation community but act on very different spatial scales and with varying data
resolution.
Monitoring interventions fits into broader strategies; namely, CI’s Outcomes Monitoring
program, and the monitoring reporting requirements under the Convention on Biological
Diversity, of which 187 countries are a party to. The project framework for these
monitoring strategies is the same – following an adaptive state – pressure - response
model (see figure 1). For Intervention Monitoring, state variables relate to biodiversity
parameters (species and habitats), pressure variables relate to socio-economic drivers of
threat on species and habitats (both proximate and distant, but with a justifiable
connection to state variables), and response variables relate to management activities
being implemented at the site in response to threats or directly for the
maintenance/enhancement of state variables.
Intervention Monitoring Description
DRAFT – for internal use only
STATE
Quantity and quality
of species, area, and
corridor scale
conservation
outcomes
RESPONSES
PRESSURES
Actions taken to
mitigate threats and
overcome obstacles to
conservation
outcomes
Threats or obstacles to
the conservation of
species, area, and
corridor outcomes
Figure 1. Representation of the State-Pressure-Response framework and the interactions
between each variable type.
The Intervention Monitoring Initiative
The Intervention Monitoring Initiative seeks to provide fine resolution, quantitative trend
data to describe the conservation influence of each of a suite of projects (interventions)
primarily implemented at the site scale. Ultimately, CI aims to invest in areas that are
important for biodiversity conservation. We have an institutional process to identify these
Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), which relies on the vulnerability and irreplaceability of
individual populations of species at each site. Therefore, each intervention should have
objectives that can feed into the broader goals of Conservation International (or CI’s
Outcomes: Extinctions Avoided; Areas Protected; and, Corridors Consolidated).
Progress toward achieving these objectives are, wherever possible, looked at through the
lens of KBA definition – particularly the species populations that make these areas global
conservation priorities. However, as many of these interventions are being implemented
or monitored by our partners, or are in areas yet to undergo the process of KBA
definition, they often have different interpretations of conservation objectives to meet as
well. The most direct way to look at the conservation influence of an action is through
populations of species that trigger an area as a global conservation priority. However,
where direct measurement is impractical Intervention Monitoring recommends using
justifiable proxies.
Projects within the Intervention Monitoring Initiative range across intervention type (e.g.
supporting enterprise, community conservation, creating varying types of protected area,
etc.) and ecological system (all types of terrestrial, marine and aquatic). It is therefore
Intervention Monitoring Description
DRAFT – for internal use only
very cumbersome to have a rigid, inflexible framework for all projects. Instead, the
framework is separated into categories of information, using the state-pressure-response
framework, relevant to biodiversity and human well-being. These categories are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Species (globally significant, indicator, charismatic, locally important);
Habitat extent;
Habitat quality (habitat necessary for species persistence);
Pressures to species, habitat, or system; and,
Responses to pressures and conservation opportunities.
There has been some work on identifying consistent measures for these categories of
information. We are considering a somewhat standard approach for analyzing data. The
trick is identifying analytical tools that can manage and compare across multiple data
collection methodologies. Some of the categories of information are easy to deal with –
habitat extent, for example, is a simple matter of calculating change in habitat cover (E =
hi - hi-1), where E is change in habitat extent, hi is the current habitat area, and hi-1 is
habitat area at last measurement. Habitat area can be collected using a variety of methods,
from remote sensing to aerial surveys to circling an area with GPS. Different
interventions may employ different methods, but methods should be consistent within
each intervention. For species, we are exploring the utility of occupancy statistics to
analyze a wide array of species/community sampling methodologies. We are still in the
early stages of identifying a common metric for habitat quality. We propose that pressure
indicators be measured as amount, extent, and severity. Finally, response indicators
borrow from project management literature.
The Intervention Monitoring Initiative Process
The process for setting up monitoring under the Intervention Monitoring Initiative
typically looks like the following:
- Identify the broad conservation issues to which the intervention is responding
(species present, habitat type/diversity, pressures to the system, etc.). These may
relate to CI priorities, other donor requirements, country reporting requirements,
etc.
- Identify conservation issues relevant to the mission of Conservation International
to which the intervention is responding (extinctions avoided, areas protected,
corridors consolidated)
- Identify specific conservation questions that the intervention is to address
(relating to species conservation, habitat conservation, corridor viability, etc.)
- Using the identified issues and questions, identify indicators that can be used to
track the degree and direction of change relating to conservation issues
- (*)Set targets for indicators to be reached over the life of the investment
- Identify a reporting strategy (framework and periodicity)
Logistically, the process generally follows these steps:
- Site visit to understand context, identify preliminary indicators, engage local
partners, identify advisory committee, and identify local coordinator for
monitoring work
Intervention Monitoring Description
DRAFT – for internal use only
-
-
Preliminary monitoring strategy prepared by local monitoring coordinator in
consultation with Intervention Monitoring Initiative team (strategy should include
project timeline and budget)
Review of strategy by the advisory committee
Edits to the monitoring strategy and preparation of a fundraising scheme
Implementation of monitoring on the ground
Reporting to all interested parties
To ensure that many interests are met by the monitoring strategy and to promote longterm sustainability, the following elements are considered ideal:
- Involving all local conservation partners in the region in an active or advisory role
- Involving other sectors who are interested in the program
- Extending indicators beyond one organization’s requirements or concerns
- Having data collected by locals or nationals
- Having data collected and/or verified by an independent third party
- Ensuring that data fits with broader local, national, regional and international
strategies
- Having some independent (preferably private) financial support of the monitoring
program
- Ensuring adaptability in the monitoring program and that results from the
monitoring program feed into adaptive management of the intervention
Creating a substantial monitoring program understanding that continuation, especially in
the long term, will rely on ease of implementation (related to capacity), amount of
continued financial resources required for the program, and sustained support from the
advisory committee
If you have any questions, comments or would like any clarification please contact Hari
at [email protected] of the Outcomes Monitoring Support Program.