|
Improving Impact Evaluations of Biodiversity Conservations Projects
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Clemencia Vela, Independent Consultant, clemenvela@aol.com
|
| Abstract:
The paper proposes suggestions to improve evaluation of impacts on conservation coming from lessons learned from Mid Term and Final Evaluations made for projects financed by Multilateral Lending Agencies and by Donor organizations.
Most project documents include Baseline information and a Logical Framework that guides the implementation of Projects. Nevertheless, many projects, even some whose goals aim to improve conditions for biodiversity conservation, lack the required information to assess the project’s impacts. Most common weaknesses found are:
i) Baselines that include general information but do not include indicators to allow comparison between the before and after the project scenarios;
ii) Indicators included aims to verify compliance but are inadequate to assess impacts.
The proposed suggestions include the allocation of a line budget within the project budget to gather information before and after the intervention regarding impact indicators and the publication of a compilation of impact indicators for biodiversity conservation.
|
|
A Mixed Methods Approach to Evaluating Multi-site Habitat Protection Programs
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Mark Braza, United States Government Accountability Office, brazam@gao.gov
|
| Michael Krafve, United States Government Accountability Office, krafvem@gao.gov
|
| Abstract:
In spite of the importance of protected areas for maintaining biodiversity, there are few large-scale statistical evaluations of the effects of land management on habitat quality. We describe a method used to estimate these effects for the National Wildlife Refuge System, which is comprised of 585 refuges and wetland management districts covering 96 million acres. These lands often experience external disturbances, including water pollution, invasive species, and habitat fragmentation. As a result, they employ wildlife biologists and maintenance workers who maintain water levels, treat invasive species, restore damaged areas, and otherwise manage the land to provide quality habitat. In 2008, we surveyed refuge managers about refuge conditions and received an 81% response rate. Our regression models estimate that refuge managers were more likely to report improved habitat quality for waterfowl and other migratory birds between 2002 and 2007 on refuges where staffing levels increased and where external disturbances did not.
|
| |