Forests Sourcebook - HCV Resource Network

Box 4.14
Outcome Assessment Tracking
It is difficult to reach agreement among all stakeholders
about what is wanted and what is likely to happen. The
outcome assessment approach is based upon negotiations
among all stakeholders on what they want the
landscape to look like and what it is to deliver, that is,
how they want the landscape to perform. Indicators
then have to be selected that will measure change in the
landscape and how that will correspond to the desired
performance criteria. Indicators of changes in different
categories of landscape values (natural, built, human,
and social value categories) provide a basis for assessing
the impact of interventions from a holistic perspective.
This approach is particularly useful in situations
where an intervention is anticipated to impact a landscape
mosaic, for instance, in determining and then
assessing an appropriate balance between the amount
of forest needed for conservation and the amount that
might be converted to agriculture or other uses. Outcome
assessment methodologies are consistent with
commonly employed participatory techniques for
planning and evaluating interventions; the techniques
should thus be used early in project formulation to
ensure clarity of desired project effects on landscape
outcomes and establish the basis for measuring them.
The indicator sets can be developed in a few days
during a multistakeholder meeting. A technical person,
or small team, will then need to conduct the first, baseline
assessment. This may require extensive field surveys
and, depending upon the complexity of the situation
and the availability of data, may take several
months. The process will have to be repeated every year
to track progress, so an annual meeting will be needed
to review progress and adapt management as needed.
The costs associated with this approach include
those of the facilitator for the first meeting and technical
staff hired for several months to assemble data.
Landscape-scale outcome assessment approaches
capture the broader impacts of any intervention—a
policy change, financial incentive, new projects, and so
forth—on the landscape. They could complement
rates of return studies in negotiating possible externalities
of an intervention and then measuring them.
Source: Sayer 2006.
the intervention. It should be an ongoing process through
which periodic monitoring is used to modify, as necessary,
the implementation of the project (see chapter 7, Monitoring
and Information Systems for Forest Management).
SELECTED READINGS
Forthcoming. Landscape Measures Resource Center.
www.ecoagriculturepartners.org.
Buck, L. E., J. C. Milder, T. A. Gavin, and I. Mukherjee. 2006.
“Understanding Ecoagriculture: A Framework for Measuring
Landscape Performance.” Discussion Paper No. 2,
Ecoagriculture Partners, Washington, DC. http://www
.ecoagriculturepartners.org/documents/reports/discus
sionPapers/DiscussionPaperV2.pdf.
REFERENCES CITED
Stem, C., R. Margoluis, N. Salafsky, and M. Brown. 2005.
“Monitoring and Evaluation in Conservation: A Review
of Trends and Approaches.” Conservation Biology 19(2):
295–309.
Buck, L. E., J. C. Milder, T. A. Gavin, and I. Mukherjee. 2006.
“Understanding Ecoagriculture: A Framework for Measuring
Landscape Performance.” Discussion Paper No. 2,
Ecoagriculture Partners, Washington, DC. http://www
.ecoagriculturepartners.org/documents/reports/discussionPapers/DiscussionPaperV2.pdf.
Ecoagriculture Partners and IUCN (International Conservation
Union). 2007. “Principles of Engagement with
Stakeholders in Negotiating and Measuring Landscape-
Level Outcomes.” Draft, Ecoagriculture Working Group,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. http://ecoag.cals.cornell
.edu/documents.html.
Sayer, J. A., and S. Maginnis, eds. 2006. Forests in Landscapes:
Ecosystem Approaches to Sustainability. London: Earthscan.
CROSS-REFERENCED CHAPTERS AND NOTES
Note 4.1: Integrated Forest Landscape Land-Use Planning
Note 4.3: Using Adaptive Management to Improve Project
Implementation
Chapter 7: Information and Monitoring Systems for Forest
Management, and associated notes
142 CHAPTER 4: OPTIMIZING FOREST FUNCTIONS IN A LANDSCAPE