Results Chains - Basics

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Update on the Protected Areas System Master Plan March 2011.
Advertisements

Measuring your impact vs. activity
Developing Environmental Indicators with Our States EPA Region 3/State Indicators and Outcomes Initiative.
2. Fisheries management and the Ecosystem approach
1A-1B.Team, Scope and Vision Conservation Coaches Network Workshop Presentation.
CFP Reform Implementation of the Landings Obligation: Context and Process.
2A. Develop a Formal Action Plan: Results Chains Conservation Coaches Network Workshop Presentation.
5. MOVING TOWARD EAFM Essential EAFM Date Place 5. Moving towards EAFM Version 1.
Natura 2000 Funding Opportunities under EMFF Regulation for Damien Clarke Managing Authority – EFF / EMFF
The National MPA Center: Helping to Conserve our Nation’s Marine Resources Lauren Wenzel National Marine Protected Areas Center.
Alternative Energy for Indoor Air Quality Improvement Practice in Rural Mountainous Communities of China’s Yunnan Province Xia Zuzhang The Nature Conservancy.
OBLIGATIONS TO PROTECT MARINE ECOSYSTEMS UNDER INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND OTHER LEGAL INSTRUMENTS Transform Aqorau Scientific Symposium of the Reykjavik.
Managing with Measures Information Systems for Tracking and Reporting of Strategy Effectiveness Measures Screen shots from live demonstration delivered.
How to Develop a Project Evaluation Plan Pat Gonzalez Office of Special Education Programs
Incorporating Ecosystem Objectives into Fisheries Management
Where have all the fishes gone?
Queen Conch Experts Workshop Miami, United States of America, 22–24 May 2012 Paul Medley.
Biodiversity Conservation On The Tonle Sap Great Lake Heng Sokrith Tonle Sap Program Coordinator, May 2011.
Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process Quick Tour Project-level planning & measures within The Nature Conservancy.
Reducing Vulnerability at the Community Level Jo-Ellen Parry, Program Manager Adaptation in Eastern and Southern Africa.
1 Module 4: Designing Performance Indicators for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Programs.
GEF Expanded Constituency Workshop Windhoek, Namibia February 17-18, 2015 GEF 6 Programming Strategic Plan for Biodiversity,
Dr. Howard Nelson Biodiversity Specialist Ministry of Planning, Housing and the Environment Trinidad and Tobago.
Measures Measures Matter! Conservation Coaches Network New Coach Training.
Identifying Indicators
Preliminary theory of change for the South China Sea Project Cluster Neeraj Negi Reference Group Meeting Bangkok, Thailand September 27, 2010.
Fiji Locally Managed Marine Area (LMMA) Network.
Natural Solutions for Climate Change Impacts in Tropical Seas Presentation Courtesy of Rod Salm & The Nature Conservancy Insert photo of healthy local/regional.
Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Management Board Meeting the Expectations and Challenges of Joint Venture Implementation Buras, Louisiana June.
Developing Strategy Effectiveness Measures Conservation Strategies & Learning Team April 12, 2012.
Building Capacity on Protected Areas Law & Governance Management Module 5.
May 27 th, 2003FRCV Conservation Plan Summary and Status Rock Creek Valley Conservation Plan & Priorities Prepared by Friends of Rock Creek Valley with.
Collaborative Fisheries Management. 14 th May 2014.
Environmental Management System Definitions
UNIT 8: Fisheries assessments. 2 Fisheries data Why do we need fisheries data? FAO (2005): “Information is critical to EAF. It underpins the formulation.
Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Resource Management Plan Scoping Meetings August 30 and 31, 2010.
Why Does NOAA Need a Climate & Ecosystem Demonstration Project in the California Current System? Capabilities and Drivers La Jolla, CA 6 June, 2005.
Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006 March 2007.
EU management – current situation and future actions Kenneth Patterson European Commission Directorate-General of Fisheries and Maritime Affairs.
1 NOAA Priorities for an Ecosystem Approach to Management A Presentation to the NOAA Science Advisory Board John H. Dunnigan NOAA Ecosystem Goal Team Lead.
PROVISIONS OF H.R SECTION 3: SCIENCE BASED IMPROVEMENTS TO MANAGEMENT [303(a )] Page 3, lines 22-25, Page 4, Page 5, lines 1-9 Paragraph 15 is.
Measures Measures Matter!. Key Points to Introduce This Step Measures Matter! –Often seen as last step or too challenging, so neglected –Provide transparency.
Wildlife Protection Adapting to Change NASF Annual Meeting Lake Tahoe, California September 16, 2015 Lisa Allen Missouri State Forester.
CAP Quick Tour Whooping Crane CAP – Kearney, NE.
U.S. Coral Triangle Initiative Support Program US CTI Support Program Overview APEC LRFFT MEETING Sanur, Bali, Indonesia March 2, 2011 Maurice Knight Chief.
Biodiversity Health Index Main Streams for Life John MacKinnon UNDP consultant June 2012.
The Live Reef Food Fish Trade: Towards Industry Best Practice Standards Charles V. Barber International Marinelife Alliance "Responding to the Challenge.
Deeping Skill in Working with Logical Frameworks Examples.
North American Marine Protected Areas Network Commission for environmental cooperation Biodiversity Conservation Working Group CEC Council Session - 24.
August 1 st Draft of Offshore Aquaculture Amendment Gulf Council Meeting August 11-15, 2008 Key Largo, FL Tab J, No. 6.
National Work Plans Cambodia. Agenda 1 : Actively strengthen front lines Goal : Promote living condition of frontline staffs.
European Commission Directorate General Environment Page 1 Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning monitoring.
USING STEWARDSHIP AUTHORITY TO ADVANCE RESTORATION Mae Lee Hafer Regional Stewardship Coordinator Collaborative Restoration.
2A.Develop a Formal Action Plan: Goals & Strategies © Foundations of Success December 2008.
Unit Webex Meetings Step 1: Targets, Threats, and Stresses.
“The people’s forests” Public Participation in National Forest Planning Susan Jane Brown, Staff Attorney Western Environmental Law Center The National.
FISHING EFFORT & CPUE.
IBFMPs Goals and Objectives
Creating results chains
2A. Develop a Formal Action Plan: Objectives
Management approaches for CEAFM
PROVISIONS OF H.R
Feedback received on the establishment of fisheries management measures in Natura 2000 sites (Document 4.1) Exchange information on ongoing activities.
Assessing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) In Indonesia
Sea Cucumbers Management
Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange
Promotion of Marine and Coastal Resources Management
Results Chains.
Management approaches for CEAFM
History of the Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project
Presentation transcript:

Strategy Effectiveness Measures Conceptual Model & Results Chain Examples

Results Chains - Basics The Basic Components of a Results Chain:

Results Chains - Basics What is a Results Chain? Is a diagram of a series of “if…then” statements (“causal”) Defines how we think a project strategy or activity is going to contribute to reducing a threat and conserving a target Focuses on the achievement of results – not the execution of activities Is composed of assumptions that can be tested

Conceptual Model vs. Results Chain Results Chains - Basics Conceptual Model vs. Results Chain Conceptual Model (i.e., Situation Analysis) Show the situation today Identify strategies Results Chains: Shows the desired future condition Start with selected strategies  show desired results

Condor Bioreserve Conceptual Model Who are the key stakeholders with vested interest in the project, what factors are driving critical threats, and what opportunities exist? We use probing questions to identify key stakeholders and motivations driving the direct threats. We often use box and arrow diagrams to map the causal relationships that connect the focal targets to the direct threats to the underlying causes. Here’s an example from the Condor Bioreserve in Ecuador where one of the targets, the Andean Bear, is killed because of bear-cattle conflicts in the area. Economic losses are driving the bear killing and stem from the co-occurrence of productive grasslands used for cattle grazing and the habitat area of the Andean Bear. There is also a weak institutional response to the killings as another contributing cause. The situation analysis documents our assumptions regarding the drivers behind critical threats. This transparency is particularly helpful in projects involving multiple stakeholders because it provides a basis for peer-review to catch and correct faulty thinking. These diagrams clearly layout assumptions that drive our selection of actions and set the basis for what evidence we need to collect to inform our progress

Condor Bioreserve What factors in our situation analysis warrant action? Project teams can use their situation analysis diagrams to brainstorm the relative advantages of intervening in different locations. For example, they might decide to initiate…. a participatory process leading to the zoning of areas of recognized conservation value and separate zones for livestock grazing Or they may explore ways to compensate ranchers for cattle killed by bears.

Condor Bioreserve Results Chain

Lake Alexander – Fire Threat Situation Analysis Here is an example of a situation analysis recently developed for the Lake Alexander Project in Minnesota, related to the threat of Fire. Four targets (green ovals) - were associated with a fire threat - insufficient fire (the red box). Three factors were identified as playing a key role (the orange boxes). Three strategies were identified to address these three factors – labeled strategy 1a, 1b, and 1 c.

Lake Alexander – Fire Threat Results Chain The Lake Alexander Results chain identified a measurable objective in the blue box (X hectares burned by 2012) resulting from more prescribed burns (yellow hexagon). This was achieved by successfully implementing the three strategies (1a-1c). Each of these strategies had at least one, often two indicators that demonstrate the strategy is en route to achieve its objective for threat reduction.

NW Yunnan, China – Fuel wood threat Objective: To reduce by 75% the consumption of fuel wood collected from biologically sensitive forests in the project area in 10 years Once the plan is identified, teams must commit to follow through. Here is an example from NW Yunnan in China, where they developed an ambitious objective of reducing by 75% the consumption of fuel wood collected from biologically sensitive forests in the project area in 10 years I’ve used this classification scheme to summarize the measures efforts for the fuel-reduction strategy in NW Yunnan where TNC is working with the Chinese government to cut fuel wood collection. The simplified results chain to support this strategy is indicated in the diagram… that we will step through in the following slides…

NW Yunnan, China – Fuel wood threat Resources spent on Alternative Energy Strategy FY 2001 $50,000 FY2002 $150,000 FY2003 $350,000 Total $550,000 The total investment in resources – or inputs - is just over ½ million dollars.

NW Yunnan, China – Fuel wood threat Record of activities completed (e.g., proposals written, grants received, # presentations made, number of household surveys completed). There has been a lot of activity associated with this strategy, including writing and receiving grants, presentations to local communities, household surveys. Training on Fireplace, Biogas, and Greenhouse Use in Village

NW Yunnan, China – Fuel wood threat Alternative energy installations completed (as of June 2003) 1,491 Household Scale Biogas Units 20 Biogas-Greenhouse Units 97 Improved Fireplace/Cookstoves 129 Solar Water Heating Units 9 Energy demonstration project at schools Outputs include counts of the alternative energy installations completed. # of biogas units # of biogas-greenhouse combinations # of improved cookstoves # of solar units # of energy demonstrations at schools

NW Yunnan, China – Fuel wood threat Threat abatement measured by measuring changes in volume of wood consumed in a sample of households Also, household surveys to collect details on # people, fuel wood uses Outputs are measured by tracking the rate of wood consumption by measuring changes in the size of wood piles outside of villagers homes along with household surveys on how they are using wood and much time they are spending gathering it.

NW Yunnan, China – Fuel wood threat Changes in forest cover calculated from changes in satellite-derived forest-cover maps The Impacts to the conservation targets are assessed through a combination of periodic forest cover maps.

NW Yunnan, China – Fuel wood threat Changes in forest cover recorded from permanent photopoints along ridge top trails And by a series of ground-based permanent photopoints along ridge tops.

NW Yunnan, China – Fuel wood threat Here is the results chain with the indicators that are tracked to show what progress is or is not being made. These terms like outputs and impacts are all used in different ways by different organizations – which is a cause of confusion when we share results. C.I. for example, refers to their ultimate biodiversity condition as their outcomes. It doesn’t really matter what the steps are called. What is important is recognizing the need to track more than just the species or habitats we’re concerned about when we’re trying to figure out whether our actions are achieving their intented results. Measures of the activities implemented and measures of threat abatement are critical to understanding whether strategies are working.

Mesoamerican Reef Fisheries Watch this & remaining slides in Slide Show mode Mesoamerican Reef Fisheries Conceptual Model

Mesoamerican Reef Fisheries Results Chain Objective FSM3: By 2012 there is at least one concession given to fishermen in Honduras using sustainable practices to have exclusive fishing rights to some species / areas in the priority sites. Indicator FSM3-I1:# of concession agreement drafts prepared and approved by government and the fishermen of the priority sites Objective FSM2: By 2012 30% of the fishermen in the relevant priority sites are aware of and capable of using the sustainable fishing practices identified in FSM1. Indicators: FSM2-I1: % of fishermen aware of sustainable fishing practices; FSM2-l2: % of priority sites fishermen trained in sustainable fishing practices Objective FSM1: By 2011, at least 4 sustainable fisheries practices are identified that could be applied in and around priority sites. Indicator FSM1-I1: # of sustainable fisheries products identified around priority sites for which there is demand Goal: By 2018, all validated and ecologically functional SPAG sites will maintain the conditions necessary to preserve the species (composition, abundance, proportion of sexes) documented during validation. Indicators: (1) # of species that aggregate in specific periods; (2) # of individuals of each species during the peak of the aggregation period; Goal: By 2018, more than 25% of all coral reef habitat types in the MAR are effectively conserved.* Indicators: (1) Abundance of herbivore species; (2) Abundance of surgeon fish and parrot fish * Working definition of effective conservation exists with multiple components Objective FSM6: By 2018, at least 80 % of the fishermen in 8 MAR Program priority sites comply with all fishing regulations (no-take zones, closed seasons, gear. Indicator FSM6-I1: # of infractions; & FSM6-I2: # of law enforcement actions (warnings, fines, confiscation, jail) Objective FSM5: By 2017, fishermen are collaborating actively in law enforcement activities in 6 priority sites. Indicator FSM5-I1: # of law enforcement activities (patrolling, reports of infractions) where participation of fishermen is documented Intermediate Results Outcome Results

Kimbe Bay Managing Conservation Projects Results Chain with Strategy, Objectives, Indicators Kimbe Bay Objective: By FY12, 4 active spawning aggregation sites closed or with restricted fishing practices Indicator: # of SPAGs closed to fishing Objective: By FY09, Section 38 of the Maritime Zones bill is expanded to establish marine protected areas Indicator: Bill passed/failed Objective: By FY 12, live coral cover of reef systems increased to over 50% Indicator: % cover live coral Objective: By FY17, 250,000 ha of LLMA's under effective management in Kimbe Bay Indicator: ha with acceptable Mgmt Effectiveness Scores Objective: By FY10, design and legally secure a functionally-connected network of LMMAs and MPAs in Kimbe Bay covering 250,000 ha. Indicator: Area (ha) designated as LMMA Outcome Results Intermediate Results

Intermediate Results Outcome Results Objective: After 2012, all 37 fish stocks in the Ecoregion are fished at levels consistent with an ecolocially sustainable harvest. Indicator: # of Fish Stocks at Sustainable Limit Goal: By 2015, have at least 5.0 groundfish per hour from average party boat CPUE measurements. Indicator: CPUE Levels for Groundfish Objective: By the end of 2009, Council staff have the knowledge and capacity to implement a pilot test of DAPs. Indicator: Assessment of Capacity of Council Objective: By 2012, there are no more than 10 incidences per year of fishermen violating the TAC Limits. Indicator: # of Incidences of TAC Violations Objective: By 2010, the council has set Total Allowable Catch (TAC) limits for each stock that are within scientifically credible "sustainable" limits. Indicator: # of Stocks with Credible Catch Limits Objective: By the end of 2009, the council approves a "good" DAP plan. Criteria include: 1. Comprehensiveness; 2. Minimal Proccessor Quota; 3. Adaptive Management Trust; 4. Gear Switching Provisions Indicator: Quality of DAP Plan Approved (specific criteria established) Intermediate Results Outcome Results

Goal: 20-30% of Frequent Fire forests on public are in Condition Class I. Indicator: % Departure from NRV Objective: 75% Reduction in acres of severe fire and/or unnatural mortality due to insects and disease by 2030 Indicator: # acres of severe fire and/or unnatural mortality Objective: By 2020 the percent of restoration projects appealed reduced to 25%. Indicator: # of appeals/# of projects Objective: # of acres treated increases by 30% by 2015 Indicator: # of acres treated Objective: # of NEPA approved projects increases by a third by 2020. Indicator: # of NEPA approved projects Fire Learning Network – Central Oregon Intermediate Results Outcome Results

Mackinaw River Initial Conceptual Model with Outreach Strategy

Mackinaw River – paired watershed study Intermediate Results Outcome Results No detectable improvement in water quality or conservation targets in treated watershed as compared to the control. Results demonstrate increased use of Best Management Practices in the treated watershed as compared to the control Here we see the same results chain with objectives and indicators illustrated. They gathered information to show that they reached more farmers in their outreach program than were reached in the control watershed, and these farmers in turn adopted more ag BMPs than the farmers that were not contacted via the outreach program CLICK1 – Here you see data from three of the indicators – each one an agricultural best management practice. The blue lines are the treatment watershed where the outreach program was directed, the red lines are from the control watershed where there was no outreach program. The middle figure shows the amount of land put into one type of Ag BMP – filter strips. These filter strips are supposed to intercept surface runoff, and reduce the amount of soil and excess fertilizer running into the stream. This far into the results chain, this strategy iwas achieving its desired results – for all three BMPs. CLICK2 – Fade out CLICK3 – They also tracked changes in water quality. In this case, you see graphs of nitrogen concentrations, from the upper and lower sections of the subwatersheds, and there was no significant difference between the two subwatersheds. CLICK4 - As for the conservation targets – there was also no change. These two graphs track mussel richness and abundance over time. Information was collected on other biota – like macroinvertebrate insects and fish – and they revealed no difference as well. In both cases, for threat reduction and improving the status of the targets, they did not find that the Ag BMPs were enough to achieve the desired results. So what did this mean? How could they use this information to improve their conservation efforts?

Mackinaw River Revised Conceptual Model with new Tile-Drainage Abatement Strategy