A Note on “Results-Based Conservation”
Dear Senior Managers,
Implementing measures across the Conservancy involves far more than just getting the science
right. Fundamentally, it’s about becoming a more result-based organization and evolving the way we
manage our portfolio of strategies and projects. This current plan addresses the “measures”
component of Results-Based Conservation, which is an essential part of the picture.
With the endorsement of this plan by the Conservation Leadership Team (CLT), responsibility for
overseeing and implementing measures shifts from Central Science to Conservation Programs—and
especially to you, the Seniors Managers at all levels of the Organization. For the next couple of
years, we’ll be focusing measures investments on the strategies and projects defined by the CLT as
“priorities.” While it won’t include everything you are doing, it will reach down into most if not all of
TNC’s 80+ Operating Units.
To become a results-based organization will take all of us doing our parts, and in truth we are well
on our way toward that goal. Many thanks go to Craig Groves and Jeff Hardesty and their team of
Senior Managers for leading the development of this current roadmap of next steps. I look forward
to working with you in the coming months to implement this plan.
Bill Ginn, Chief Conservation Officer
Karen Poiani, Chief Conservation Strategy Officer
FY 2011-12
Mainstreaming Strategy
Effectiveness Measures
Conservation Measures Business Plan Summary
November 10, 2010
Senior Manager Measures Advisory Team
Jeff Hardesty and Craig Groves (co-coordinators), Lise Hanners, Helen Taylor, Michael Cameron,
Michael Looker, John Beavers, Chrissy Schwinn, Brian Richter, Technical Advisors – Jensen
Montambault, Doria Gordon, Mauricio Castro Schmitz, Dan Salzer & Kirsten Evans
Conservation Measures
Business Plan Summary
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Important Background
4
Audience & Scope
5
5-Year Vision & 2-Year Goal
Problems We Are Trying To Solve, Core Assumptions
& Theory of Change
Key Measures Concepts
6-7
8-10
11-13
Strategy Effectiveness Measures Level of Investment
14
Major Components of Business Plan Implementation
15-18
Evaluation of Costs
19-22
3
Please Read: Important Context and
Background
Over the past 24 months, the Executive Team has initiated a
number of related efforts to improve conservation management:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Refined organization-wide priorities (including approximately 14 global
strategies and 70+ related field strategies and projects across all regions)
Developed and tested project and strategy-scale strategy effectiveness
measures (including two Measures Summits)
Established semi-annual Chief Conservation Officer (CCO) management
review of each Global Team and each Region’s priority strategies and
projects (including a CCO reporting dashboard and 2x/year discussion of
high-level conservation results)
Strengthened strategies via improved business planning (including
evaluating a new business planning approach and “business plan
summaries;” implementing a pilot project with Bridgespan; and chartering
a Central Science-led team to update conservation planning methods)
This plan is closely related to and dependent on these key efforts
4
Audience & Scope of This Plan
Primary Audience—TNC Senior Managers and Senior Conservation
Leaders including:
•
•
•
•
Executive Team members
Conservation Leadership Team members
Senior Managers of Field Programs and Global Teams
Senior Conservation Leaders in Field Programs and Global Teams
In addition, this plan will be relevant to many TNC scientists and field practitioners, plus
selected foundation and government donors interested in results-based performance
measures.
Primary Scope—Organization-Wide Priorities
• This plan encompasses the strategies and projects that are defined as
directly supporting organization-wide priorities, whether implemented by
Global Teams, Regions, individual Country or State programs, or other TNC
management units*
*Contact Karen Poiani, Chief Conservation Strategy Officer, your regional director or global team leader for a list of the priority strategies and
projects covered by this plan. Once this list is finalized, it will be available and posted on the intranet.
5
Five Year Vision - Conservation
Measures Business Plan
Strategy evaluation and adaptive management are “business
as usual” in all TNC Field Programs and Global Teams.
Evaluating the effectiveness of TNC’s most important strategies
results in:
• Demonstrated progress towards intended conservation results
• Improved management decision-making
• Increased return on investment1
• Better understanding and management of risks
1 See
“Key Measures Terms,” pages 11-13.
6
Two Year Goals for Conservation Measures
Business Plan (FY-11 and FY-12)
1. By June 2012, all Organization-Wide Priority Strategies and
Projects have credible conservation business plans
2. 75% of Priorities can report on progress on near-term actions,
and are actively using results in an adaptive management
fashion1
3. 50% of Priorities can report on progress toward achieving
longer-term conservation outcomes (e.g., biodiversity,
threats)
1 See “Key Measures
Terms,” pages 11-13.
2 Contact Karen Poiani, Chief Conservation Strategy Officer, your regional director or global team leader for a list
of the priority strategies and projects covered by this plan. Once this list is finalized, it will be available and posted
on the intranet.
7
What Are the Problems We Are Trying to
Solve With This Plan?
TNC strategies are more ambitious than ever—but expected results are sometimes
unclear and evaluation of strategy effectiveness is spotty.
Despite pockets of excellence, we are still challenged to answer basic management
questions across much of our strategy portfolio:
•
•
•
•
What results are we holding ourselves accountable for and are we making progress?
Which strategies/actions1 are working and which aren’t?
What are important social and economic impacts of our strategies?
Are we receiving an acceptable conservation return on our investments (ROI)?
Donors are increasingly focused on results and validating the ROI of their investments
and “measures” could become a TNC competitive advantage.
•
A recent survey2 of large conservation foundations and NGOs commissioned by the
foundations estimated that for every conservation dollar spent, only about one dime’sworth was guided by results-based management (i.e., only one in ten projects could
evaluate whether results were achieved)
Perception that evaluating TNC strategies/actions is complicated and costly.
TNC’s conservation-related management and planning approaches need updating and
we can be more efficient in the delivery of support.
1Including
cross-cutting strategies that are being implemented concurrently in multiple projects across TNC.
MJ (Draft 2010) Are we measuring conservation effectiveness? A survey of current results-based management practices in the
conservation community. Unpublished report.
2Muir,
8
Core Assumptions of Conservation
Measures Business Plan
 Measures only make sense as a component of ongoing planning and
evaluation of strategy effectiveness and results
 Ongoing planning and strategy evaluation are costs of doing business
 Evaluating the effectiveness of strategies will lead to improved
conservation ROI for both individual projects/strategies as well as the
“strategy portfolio” of a Global Team, TNC region or Operating Unit
 Sufficient capacity and funding exists now within Global Teams, Central
Science, the Chief Conservation Officer , and Field Programs to markedly
advance measures around Priorities — but realignment of capacity and
funding will be needed in some field programs for some projects and
strategies
 Focusing on strategy effectiveness will give us a competitive advantage
with an increasing number of major individual and foundation donors
9
Theory of Change for Mainstreaming
Strategy Effectiveness Measures
If the TNC Board, CEO and senior managers all agree on organization-wide strategy/project
priorities – then senior managers will have much needed certainty and continuity about
where and how to invest resources, including in measuring results;
If the Chief Conservation Officer (CCO) focuses on accountability for conservation results
based on effective strategies – then senior managers will invest in measuring results and
more rigorously evaluating strategy effectiveness, especially for strategies and projects
deemed priorities;
If early adopting senior managers can demonstrate that systematic application of best
practices improves their management decisions and is cost effective – then other senior
managers will learn from these examples and will adopt what works;
If the CCO and senior conservation leaders agree on a set of flexible, stable, and achievable
“best practices” for conservation business planning, measures, and peer review – then
managers will make smart and appropriate investments in capacity;
If senior managers are themselves engaged in regular evaluation of their project and
strategy portfolios and if evaluation focuses on strategy robustness and progress against
intended results – then strategies, results, learning, and ROI will rapidly improve over time.
10
Key Measures Concepts (1)
Return on investment (or ROI). ROI as used in this business plan refers to the staff
and financial resources invested in a set of strategies and actions and the
conservation gains or return made as a result of these investments. The
assumption is that by routinely evaluating the effectiveness of our strategies and
actions and making course corrections where necessary, we will improve ROI,
whether qualitatively or quantitatively.
Adaptive management (or Results-Based Management). Adaptive management
refers to a typical project management cycle of Plan-Do-Check-Adapt. Outside TNC
the phrase “results-based management “ is gaining traction in the conservation
and foundation community as synonymous but preferable terminology to adaptive
management because it focuses on the ultimate purpose of adaptive
management--conservation impact.
11
Key Measures Concepts (2)
Strategy Effectiveness Measures (SEM): SEM refers to measurable objectives and
indicators of a strategy. By repeated monitoring of indicators over time, we analyze
progress towards these measurable objectives. Using the results of monitoring to
make course corrections in strategies allows us to practice adaptive management.
Outside TNC, the application of SEM and monitoring is often referred to as
“monitoring & evaluation” or as part of “results-based management.”
Monitoring: Monitoring can be cheap and easy such as when we are simply checking
to see if we accomplished intermediate steps in a longer-term strategy (e.g., writing a
protected area management plan, setting up a trust fund, purchasing land). In other
situations, we need to make more substantial investments in monitoring to determine
whether we are achieving longer-term conservation outcomes (e.g., improving the
viability of a species or ecosystem). A critical point is that only a small percentage
(< 10%) of organization-wide priority strategies and projects should require a
substantial investment in sophisticated monitoring, perhaps an additional quarter to
a third will require modest investments, while the remaining projects should need
only relatively small investments.
12
Key Measures Concepts (3)
Cross-cutting Strategies: These are strategies that are being implemented
concurrently at multiple projects across the Conservancy (e.g., MPAs). To evaluate
these strategies, managers need to be clear on what questions should be asked,
who wants the answers to the questions, and how the answers would be used.
Syntheses of Commonly-used Strategies (Meta-analyses): TNC deploys some
conservation strategies that are widely used internally and externally. Previously
published syntheses or meta-analyses of the effectiveness of these strategies
could benefit field staff (made available on the Conservation Gateway web site) by
saving time and money in evaluating effectiveness. New syntheses produced by
TNC staff could accomplish the same.
Social and economic Measures and Impacts: Most evaluations of effectiveness in
TNC have been focused on biodiversity or threat-related measures. In the future,
we intend to place more emphasis on evaluating social and economic impacts of
some strategies. A new social scientist has been hired in Central Science to help
with this effort.
13
Level of Investment in Strategy
Evaluation
Level and rigor of investment in strategy evaluation
should be commensurate with the risk, uncertainty, and
cost involved in implementing a project or strategy.
Relatively greater risk, uncertainty, and cost implies a proportionally greater
investment in evaluation to demonstrate a connection of cause and effect
between the actions TNC takes and the response of conservation targets or
threats, or to justify costs.
Risk can take several forms- legal, ecological, and institutional. Legal refers to risk related to various
laws and policies. Ecological refers to strategies that may result in the extirpation or significant loss of a
conservation target. Institutional risk involves situations where TNC’s reputation may be at stake if a
strategy or project is unsuccessful.
Uncertainty refers to the uncertainty inherent in successfully implementing a particular strategy or
actions.
Cost refers to the capital and operating funds and staff time involved in implementing a strategy or
action and/or to the costs born by partners or donors.
14
Major Implementation
Components
1. Managing for Results: Mainstreaming Strategy
Evaluation in TNC Management
2. Evaluating Effectiveness in Organization-Wide
Priority Strategies and Projects
3. Advancing New Concepts in Conservation
Measures
15
1: Managing for Results: Mainstreaming
Strategy Evaluation in TNC Management
Expected June 2012 Result: Senior managers in the field and global teams are actively
applying a set of basic conservation management “best practices”* that have been
tested and proven useful and effective by a group of “early adopters.“
Objective 1: Relatively simple and flexible best practices* for project &strategy
management, conservation business planning, peer review, and measures will be
established in consultation with senior managers.
Objective 2: A group of senior manager “early adopters” applies and evaluates the
management impacts, benefits and costs of implementing best practices.
Objective 3: Expected conservation results and progress for global priority projects and
strategies will be systematically discussed during CCO semi-annual management review
process.
Objective 4: Best practices will be modified to reflect lessons learned.
Objective 5: By Feb/Mar 2012 CCO management review, the priority strategies &
projects of each TNC Region and Global Team will begin reporting on progress toward
adoption of best practices.
*Examples of potential best practices: Every organization-wide priority strategy and project has developed a
conservation business plan that meets basic content requirements; plan and progress are peer-reviewed at least
annually by the accountable senior managers and team, with periodic peer review by experts external to team.
16
2: Evaluating Effectiveness in OrganizationWide Priority Strategies and Projects
Expected June 2012 Results: All organization-wide priority strategies and projects
have developed business plans, including strategy effectiveness measures, designed
monitoring programs as appropriate, and are able to report on progress towards
results.
Objective 1: ET/CLT, Senior Managers, Priority Project/Strategy Directors & Teams,
and Conservation Coaches have the appropriate level of skills, knowledge, and tools
needed for developing strategy effectiveness measures and understand best practices
and their respective roles and responsibilities.
Actions: Online orientation-training, written guidance materials
Objective 2: All organization-wide priorities have support and training needed to
develop strategy effectiveness measures, design appropriate monitoring programs,
and start implementing adaptive management.
Actions: Online measures training courses and guidance; conservation coaches and Coda fellows
provide direct support in business planning and measures; peer review workshops
Objective 3: The majority of organization-wide priorities are using ConPro to track
and report strategy effectiveness measures and monitoring information as well as
prepare summaries of conservation business plans and progress dashboards.
Actions: Online tutorial, WebEx training, & tech support for ConPro; automated measures
reports available via ConPro
17
3: Advancing New Concepts in Conservation
Measures
Expected June 2012 Results: Senior Managers and Project Directors recognize benefits and costs
of evaluating cross-cutting strategies; project teams are applying lessons-learned from published
syntheses on effectiveness of commonly applied strategies; pilot projects have evaluated socioeconomic measures; and global data on status of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine systems are
updated and publicly available.
Objective 1: The usefulness and practicality of multi-project analyses of the effectiveness of crosscutting strategies has been tested and evaluated.
Actions: Implement standard monitoring protocol for Sustainable Rivers Partnership demo sites
Objective 2: Published syntheses of the effectiveness of strategies that are commonly used by
Priority Projects/Strategies have been made available to field programs to help determine
investment in SEM-monitoring.
Actions: Published syntheses available to project teams, additional syntheses developed
Objective 3: The effectiveness of socio-economic strategies has been tested and evaluated in 5
Priority Projects/Strategies across TNC.
Actions: Direct support to project teams, socio-economic needs assessment, online resources
Objective 4: Global data on the status of freshwater, marine, and terrestrial major habitats made
publicly available via Google Maps with ongoing updating of data for re-analysis of global
conservation opportunities and needs.
18
Evaluating Costs of Measures Business Plan
Implementation: Background
– Costs per project/strategy vary widely depending on a number of factors;
thus, estimates of total costs to TNC are not particularly meaningful
• See slide 20 for an estimated range of average costs to field programs and
slides 21 and 22 for an estimate of central costs
– Sources of measures funding also vary widely, from small pots of internal
funding to multi-million dollar grants, and defy easy analysis or summary
• Major assumption: Sufficient capacity and funding exists now within Central
Science, the CCO Office, Global Teams and Field Programs to implement this
plan--but realignment of capacity and funding may be needed in some Field
Programs for some projects and strategies
– Uses of funding encompass the full cycle of strategy/project adaptive
management, including:
• Initial and on-going conservation business planning and measures
development; monitoring; on-going evaluation and peer review
19
Estimated Average Field Program Costs per
Organization-Wide Priority Project/Strategy
Complexity, Uncertainty, Risk & Strategy Cost
PERSONNEL COSTS
OVER 2 YEARS*
Business Planning &
Measures Training
Business Planning
including Measures
Initial Monitoring
Design
Implementing
Monitoring
Average Low
Investment
Average Medium
Investment
Average High
Investment
15-person -days (=$6K)
24 person-days or
.05 FTEs/yr (=$10k)
65 person-days or
.14 FTEs/yr (=$26k)
120 person-days or
.26 FTEs/yr (=$48k)
4 person-days or
.01 FTEs/yr (=$2k)
10 person-days or
.02 FTEs/yr (=$4k)
20 person-days or
.04 FTEs/yr (=$8k)
10 person-days or
.02 FTEs/yr (=$4k)
100 person-days or
.22 FTEs/yr (=$40k)
500 person-days or
1.1 FTEs/yr (=$200k)
20 person-days or
.04 FTEs/yr (=$8k)
30 person-days or
.07 FTEs/yr (=$12k)
Evaluation (incl.
external peer review) 12 person-days or
.03 FTEs/yr (=$5k)
*Cost based on $400/person-day (USD $75K annual salary + benefits); FTEs based on US 228 work days/yr
20
Estimated Central Programs Costs –
Components 1 & 2
Best practices development and
evaluation
Online training & guidance
materials
Coaches and Fellows** working
with Global Teams & Field
Project/Strategy teams
Business plan/measures peer
review workshops
2-Year Estimated Support Costs*
120 person-days (= $48,000)
160 person-days (= $64,000 )
•15 Coach-days/project (= $6,000) x 40 projects
= 600 Coach-days (=$240,000)
• 20 fellow-days/project (=$8,000)
• $200,000 travel and workshop costs for 20
monitoring fellows
560 person-days (14 p-days x 40 projects)
(=$224,000)
$400, 000 travel-workshop costs (40 projects)
*Cost based on $400/person-day (USD $75K annual salary + benefits); FTEs based on US 228 work days/yr
**Coaches and Fellows are generally paid for by combination of Field and Central programs
21
Estimated 2-Year Central Science Costs –
Component 3
Evaluation of Multi-Site and
Cross-Cutting Strategies
Evaluation of commonly used
strategies
Evaluation of socioeconomic
strategies
Global major habitat data
availability and reanalysis
Estimated 2-Year Central Science Costs*
$600,000
Two interns ($20,000 total)
1.25 FTEs
2 Coda Fellows ($30K)
540 person-days (Moore Foundation)
*Cost based on $400/person-day (USD $75K annual salary + benefits); FTEs based on US 228 work days/yr
**Coaches and Fellows are generally paid for by combination of Regional and Central programs.
22