Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

CMP A Key to Indicator Selection Indicators by definition “indicate” some underlying parameter. Thus, any indicator selection system fundamentally requires.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "CMP A Key to Indicator Selection Indicators by definition “indicate” some underlying parameter. Thus, any indicator selection system fundamentally requires."— Presentation transcript:

1 CMP A Key to Indicator Selection Indicators by definition “indicate” some underlying parameter. Thus, any indicator selection system fundamentally requires some kind of knowledge framework. Action Effectiveness Questions Threat Status Questions

2 CMP Introducing CAML The Conservation Actions & Measures Library

3 Measuring the Effectiveness of State Wildlife Grants and Wildlife Action Plans

4 The Need for Measures Question: On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it that states develop a means of evaluating the effectiveness of projects funded with state wildlife grants? Office of Mngmt & Budget (OMB) Answer: 15 !!!

5 Working Group Karl Hess (USFWS) Ron Essig (USFWS) Connie Young-Dubovsky (USFWS) Amielle DeWan (DOW) Tess Present (NAS) Shelley Green (TNC) Mary Klein (NatureServe) Mathew Birnbaum (NFWF) Bob Berg (Consultant) Terra Rentz (AFWA/TWS) Nick Salafsky (FOS) Caroline Stem (FOS) Faith Balch (MN) Dana Baxley (KY) Tara Bergeson (WI) Chris Burkett (VA) Wendy Connally (TX) Jenny Dickson (CT) Mike Harris (GA) Eric Rickerson (OR) Tracey Tomajer (NY) Mark Humpert (AFWA) Priya Nanjappa (AFWA)

6 CMP Bat Cave Results Chain

7 CMP Bat Cave Results Chain

8 CMP Bat Cave Results Chain i # breaches i # distinct cat tracks i # bats i # juveniles

9 CMP Plover Results Chain i # breaches i # disturbed nests # juveniles i # eggs i

10 CMP Generic Results Chain

11 Common State Actions 1.Land Protection 2.Data Collection/Surveys 3.Outreach to Key Resource Users 4.Species Restoration 5.Management Planning 6.Create New Habitat/Natural Processes 7.Conservation Area Designation 8.Training and Technical Assistance 9.Land Use Planning 10.Environmental Review 11.Direct Management

12 Species Restoration Definition of Action Examples “Generic” Results Chain

13 Crosswalk Table Result Objective Measures Questions

14 Questionnaire This is all most folks would see for performance reporting purposes!!

15 US Fish and Wildlife Service WILDLIFE TRACS Database

16 OMB Is Happy “You should know that I have been able to fight for State Wildlife Grant budget compared to other grant programs because of this effort to show impact.” - OMB Examiner

17 We Now Have Standard Results Chains for 11 Common State Conservation Actions… 1.Land Protection 2.Data Collection/Surveys 3.Outreach to Key Resource Users 4.Species Restoration 5.Management Planning 6.Create New Habitat/Natural Processes 7.Conservation Area Designation 8.Training and Technical Assistance 9.Land Use Planning 10.Environmental Review 11.Direct Management

18 and for 8 Actions in Central Africa 1.Protected Area Management: Patrols 2.Training & Capacity Building 3.Partner Engagement General 4.Wildlife Law Compliance & Enforcement 5.Protected Area Mngmt: Designation & Gazettement 6.Public Campaigns to Change Values & Behavior 7.Surveys & Monitoring of Target & Threats Status 8.Best Practice Guidelines for Extractive Industry

19 Wildlife Law Enforcement: Generic Results Chain Share info with courts Work with legal advisors Engage court personnel

20 Wildlife Law Enforcement: Generic Results Chain

21 Obj 1. Traffickers Identified By Y date, most/all large-scale wildlife trafficers in the region identified. Ind 1. # / % of Traffickers Identified Obj 5. Traffickers Punished Most/all traffickers convicted serve full jail term / pay fines. Ind 5, # / % of Traffickers Punished

22 CMP TM Adaptive Management Software for Conservation Projects Actions as the Basic Unit of Learning Actions are: Unit of work More likely to share failures

23 CMP These Actions Fit in Larger Classification

24 CMP These Actions Fit in Larger Classification IUCN – CMP Actions Classification: Levels 1 & 2 1. Land/Water Protection5. Law & Policy 1.1 Site/Area Protection5.1 Legislation 1.2 Resource & Habitat Protection5.2 Policies & Regulations 2. Land/Water Management5.3 Private Sector Standards & Codes 2.1 Site/Area Management5.4 Compliance & Enforcement 2.2 Invasive/Problematic Species Control6. Livelihood, Economic & Other Incentives 2.3 Habitat & Natural Process Restoration6.1 Linked Enterprises & Livelihood Alternatives 3. Species Management6.2 Substitution 3.1 Species Management6.3 Market Forces 3.2 Species Recovery6.4 Conservation Payments 3.3 Species Re-Introduction6.5 Non-Monetary Values 3.4 Ex-situ Conservation7. External Capacity Building 4. Education & Awareness7.1 Institutional & Civil Society Development 4.1 Formal Education7.2 Alliance & Partnership Development 4.2 Training7.3 Conservation Finance 4.3 Awareness & Communications

25 CMP Just Like Biology Has “Type Specimens” We Need “Generic” Actions & Measures

26 CMP Introducing CAML: The Conservation Actions & Measures Library

27 CMP Threats Indicate Status & Effectiveness

28 CMP Viability Equivalent of Threat Status = Guide to Standard Threat Indicators ScopeSeverity Very High: The threat is likely to be pervasive in its scope, affecting the target across all or most (71-100%) of its occurrence/population. High: The threat is likely to be widespread in its scope, affecting the target across much (31-70%) of its occurrence/population. Medium: The threat is likely to be restricted in its scope, affecting the target across some (11-30%) of its occurrence/population. Low: The threat is likely to be very narrow in its scope, affecting the target across a small proportion (1-10%) of its occurrence/population. Very High: Within the scope, the threat is likely to destroy or eliminate the target, or reduce its population by % within ten years or three generations. High: Within the scope, the threat is likely to seriously degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 31-70% within ten years or three generations. Medium: Within the scope, the threat is likely to moderately degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 11-30% within ten years or three generations. Low: Within the scope, the threat is likely to only slightly degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 1- 10% within ten years or three generations.


Download ppt "CMP A Key to Indicator Selection Indicators by definition “indicate” some underlying parameter. Thus, any indicator selection system fundamentally requires."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google