Forests Sourcebook - HCV Resource Network

Another important and useful process for determining
where to intervene and what action to take is a threat rating
process (examples of threat rating processes are available in
Conservation Measures Partnership 2007; Margoluis and
Salafsky 1998; The Nature Conservancy 2006). This process
involves rating the direct threats identified in a model to
help teams determine which threats are the most important
to address. This prioritization is particularly important in
light of the fact that project resources are often limited and
teams must make strategic choices.
Derive monitoring indicators from models that
make project assumptions explicit. By explicitly specifying
the most important factors affecting project sites and
laying out the logic behind project activities, it is possible to
narrow down a vast universe of data to the most important
factors. In box 4.16, the example indicates that the main factor
affecting forest corridors is clearing for new home construction.
If this is the case, the project team should not be
collecting data related to clearing for other purposes, such
as agriculture or timber harvesting—unless, in going
through the adaptive management process, the team learns
that these are important threats. Likewise, the diagram in
box 4.16 provides a concrete example of how a results chain
would help a team identify indicators to test whether the
strategies they chose are having an impact.
Explicitly define the time frame and chronology of
events necessary for achieving desired impacts.
Results chains and other tools can help teams specify the
chronology of changes that must occur to achieve their
desired effect. As figure 4.3 illustrates, results take longer to
materialize as one goes further down the chain. A results
chain can help the team be very clear about when it is realistic
to see changes as a result of their intervention and help
them communicate this information to key stakeholders.
For example, the project team for the watershed site should
not commit that stakeholders will see any changes in clearing
for new home construction as a result of their lobbying
efforts until 2013.
Program managers often have their own project cycles
for identifying, assisting, supervising, and evaluating projects.
To encourage these projects to follow an adaptive management
approach, program managers must be engaged as
early as possible. Operationally, adaptive management support
to projects might involve any of the following:
■
■
■
■
■
Help partners and stakeholders understand the value of the
adaptive management process, which might require that
managers engage in awareness-raising about adaptive
management.
Help project teams do adaptive management. Specifically,
help them use a systematic process to develop sound
strategic plans that will allow them to monitor their project’s
progress and make adjustments during the course
of the project. This might be done through
– one-on-one technical assistance from the program manager,
another staff person, or a contracted consultant;
– facilitated planning workshops in which one or multiple
project teams participate; or
– a formal training course in strategic planning (in a
classroom setting or online). 3
View failures and challenges as learning opportunities.
This requires not penalizing project teams for poor performance,
especially when they have been reflective and
identified important lessons for current and future
actions.
Allow projects to change as they proceed. Adaptive management
involves constant adjustments as teams expand
their understanding of their sites and test their assumptions.
Managers need to recognize the need for change
and even encourage projects to change, as needed, when
project teams make a good case for changing course.
Require that impact evaluations be based on the planning
work project teams have done through the adaptive management
process. If an external consultant undertakes an
evaluation of a project that has gone through a good
adaptive management process, the consultant should use
the assumptions teams originally documented (through
tools such as conceptual models and results chains) and
the goals and objectives they developed as the primary
framework for the evaluation. However, there should be
flexibility for situations in which project teams have not
done a thorough job formulating their plans.
Figure 4.3
Timing of Outcomes and Impacts
Lobby
government on
development
policies
Government
officials knowledgeable
of problems with
urban development
Government
policies discourage
rapid urban
development
Pace of
urbanization
slowed
Decrease in
clearing for
new home
construction
Forest
corridors
maintained
Occurs 2007
Occurs 2008
Occurs 2010
Occurs 2013
Occurs 2013
Occurs 2015
NOTE 4.3: USING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT TO IMPROVE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 147