Скачать презентацию Effectiveness Framework State Wildlife Grant Projects Mark Humpert Скачать презентацию Effectiveness Framework State Wildlife Grant Projects Mark Humpert

da08defebe64758dbbf03955c00f7e34.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 41

Effectiveness Framework State Wildlife Grant Projects Mark Humpert, Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Effectiveness Framework State Wildlife Grant Projects Mark Humpert, Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Nick Salafsky, Foundations of Success

Millions of $’s State Wildlife Grants Fiscal Year Millions of $’s State Wildlife Grants Fiscal Year

Wildlife Action Plans Wildlife Action Plans

Conserving at-risk fish and wildlife in Ohio SWG Successes Lake Erie Water Snake (Nerodia Conserving at-risk fish and wildlife in Ohio SWG Successes Lake Erie Water Snake (Nerodia sipedon insularum) Status: Federally threatened and state endangered Project Description: Establish permanent conservation easements on priority habitats, conduct research, determine population status and educate the public to minimize human-induced mortality. Cost= $250, 995 Outcome: Population increase to >8, 000 (Recovery Plan Goal 5, 555). Proposed for de-listing by FWS Partners: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service , Black Swamp Conservancy—Lake Erie Island Chapter, Western Reserve Land Conservancy, Northern Illinois University, Ohio State University Stone Laboratory, Lake Erie Island private property owners

Outputs vs Impacts Outputs vs Impacts

Two Questions Effectiveness ? Status ? Two Questions Effectiveness ? Status ?

The Need for EM • Improve Conservation Work – link measures & actions • The Need for EM • Improve Conservation Work – link measures & actions • Improve Accountability to Administration & Congress – show success • Maintain/Enhance Public Support – tell a story

CMP Open Standards Conservation Measures Partnership’s Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation • CMP Open Standards Conservation Measures Partnership’s Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation • Developed by leading organizations & agencies • Draws on many fields • Open source/common language • Used around the world • Great Lakes • TNC Preserves • Swedish National Parks • Donor Funding Programs • Academic Training

Adaptive Mgmt Adaptive Mgmt

Bat Cave Results Chain Bat Cave Results Chain

Bat Cave Results Chain Bat Cave Results Chain

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

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

Generic Results Chain Generic Results Chain

Mockup of Report Mockup of Report

Bat Cave Results Chain i # breaches White Nose Pathogen i # bats i Bat Cave Results Chain i # breaches White Nose Pathogen i # bats i # juveniles i # distinct cat tracks

Work Group Charge Develop and test a measures framework for assessing the effectiveness of Work Group Charge Develop and test a measures framework for assessing the effectiveness of State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, conservation actions more broadly, and potentially Wildlife Action Plans themselves.

Work Group CONSERVATION PARTNERS STATES Karl Hess (USFWS) Dana Baxley (KDFWR) Faith Balch (MNDNR) Work Group CONSERVATION PARTNERS STATES Karl Hess (USFWS) Dana Baxley (KDFWR) Faith Balch (MNDNR) Ron Essig (USFWS) Tara Bergeson (WIDNR) Connie Young-Dubovsky (USFWS) Chris Burkett (VDGIF) Amielle De. Wan (DOW) Wendy Connally (TPWD) Tess Present (NAS) Jenny Dickson (CDEP) Shelley Green (TNC) Mike Harris (GDNR) Mary Klein (Nature. Serve) Eric Rickerson (ODFW) Mathew Birnbaum (NFWF) Tracey Tomajer (NYDEC) Terra Rentz (TWS) FOUNDATIONS OF SUCCESS AFWA Nick Salafsky Mark Humpert Caroline Stem Priya Nanjappa

Timeline • • • Sept ’ 09 -Working Group Formed Dec’ 09 -Workshop 1 Timeline • • • Sept ’ 09 -Working Group Formed Dec’ 09 -Workshop 1 Jan’ 10 -Subcommittees Formed Mar’ 10 -Interim Report to TWW Committee Apr’ 10 -Workshop 2 June’ 10 -Pilot Testing July’ 10 -Workshop 3 Sept’ 10 -Phase I Report to TWW Committee Dec ‘ 10 -Workshop 4 Jan ’ 11 -SWAP Coordinators Review Mar ‘ 11 -Final Report to TWW Committee Apr ‘ 11 -Print Final Report/Implement

Framework Steps 1) Define Generic Conservation Actions 2) Use Results Chains to Describe the Framework Steps 1) Define Generic Conservation Actions 2) Use Results Chains to Describe the Theory of Change 3) ID a Limited set of Effectiveness Measures 4) Develop & Test Data Collection Questionnaires 5) Collect & Analyze Data & Adapt

11 Common Actions 11 Common Conservation Actions Funded through SWG Conservation Area Designation Acquisition/Easement/Lease 11 Common Actions 11 Common Conservation Actions Funded through SWG Conservation Area Designation Acquisition/Easement/Lease Data Collection & Analysis Management Planning Direct Management of Natural Resources Species Restoration Create New Habitat/Natural Processes Training & Technical Assistance Outreach & Education Land Use Planning Environmental Review

Criteria for Measures 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Linked to key factors Criteria for Measures 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Linked to key factors in results chain Measurableboth qualitative & quantitative Precise defined the same by all Consistentunlikely to change over time Sensitivecan measure change Overarchingcan be measured at diff. stages Achievablenot onerous to collect -

Info for One Action Definition of Action Examples “Generic” Results Chain Info for One Action Definition of Action Examples “Generic” Results Chain

Species Restoration “Good” restoration plan completed Source population identified Species Restoration “Good” restoration plan completed Source population identified

Species Restoration Species initially restored to site (short-term) Species breeding at sites : o Species Restoration Species initially restored to site (short-term) Species breeding at sites : o )

Species Restoration No breeding at sites : o( Species Restoration No breeding at sites : o(

Species Restoration “Good” overall restoration plan for species Key stakeholders buy into plan Species Restoration “Good” overall restoration plan for species Key stakeholders buy into plan

Species Restoration Species Restoration

Species Restoration Obj SP RST 2 – “Good” Plan Obj SP RST 6 a Species Restoration Obj SP RST 2 – “Good” Plan Obj SP RST 6 a – Sp Breeding Before implementation work starts, a "good" xx years of introduction, the restored Within restoration plan has been developed for the population is successfully breeding within specific project site(s). "Good" = … the restoration site(s). Obj SP RST 5 – Sp Initially Restored By specified target date, the target number of units* have been introduced to Area(s) YYYY.

Species Restoration Ind SP RST 6 – Species Breeding Evidence of ongoing self reproduction Species Restoration Ind SP RST 6 – Species Breeding Evidence of ongoing self reproduction of species within the site; Total units of species at the site Ind SP RST 2 – Quality of Plan Presence of plan; assessment of plan against a priori quality criteria

Species Restoration Species Restoration

Info for One Action Definition of Action Examples “Generic” Results Chain Info for One Action Definition of Action Examples “Generic” Results Chain

Crosswalk Table Result Objective Measures Questions Crosswalk Table Result Objective Measures Questions

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

Roll Up Measures Similar Projects Generating Similar Data • % of projects that answered Roll Up Measures Similar Projects Generating Similar Data • % of projects that answered research questions • % of projects where data reaching target audiences • % of projects leading to other management actions Demonstrate That These are More Than “Counting” Projects

Report Report

IT Systems • • Con. Pro Conservation Registry Hab. ITS Miradi Wildlife TRACS Biotics IT Systems • • Con. Pro Conservation Registry Hab. ITS Miradi Wildlife TRACS Biotics 4 Data. Basin Nature. Serve Explorer Web Service

Wildlife TRACS Wildlife TRACS

Using OS to Evaluate Wildlife Action Plans Using OS to Evaluate Wildlife Action Plans

Final Report 1. An approved framework 2. Measures for 11 common conservation actions 3. Final Report 1. An approved framework 2. Measures for 11 common conservation actions 3. Wildlife TRACS as the IT System 4. Grant Streamlining 5. Next steps for SWAP Measuring the Effectiveness of State Wildlife Grants FINAL REPORT April 2011 www. fishwildlife. org/files/Effectiveness-Measures. Report_2011. pdf

Questions “Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things. ” -Peter Questions “Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things. ” -Peter Drucker