The Holy Grail of biodiversity conservation management: Monitoring impact in projects and project portfolios

Abstract Many biodiversity conservation projects struggle to demonstrate the impact of their actions. Existing project management guidelines inadequately address the issue of planning projects in a project portfolio (a programme) and how to aggregate data across portfolios, so monitoring systems are often weak. Based on a literature review and personal experience, I define Five Steps to Conservation Impact: 1. Planning — develop a shared vision and measurable goals and objectives (with project goals and objectives linked to higher-level programme goals and objectives); 2. Common indicators — identify indicators common to projects and the programmes they contribute towards to allow aggregation of results; 3. Monitoring — collect data to measure indicators (wherever possible using harmonised monitoring protocols to enhance data sharing); 4. Interpretation — present data in a format of use to programme managers and other decision makers (presenting trends in ways that demonstrate outliers, through maps and dashboards); 5. Action — use data to evaluate progress and make adaptive management decisions. These steps differ from other project management guidelines by linking common goals with common indicators and measuring aggregated conservation impact. Enabling conditions for success include: senior managers are willing to establish a results-based management culture; attribution is considered an aspiration not a hindrance; capacity and tools are in place. If organisations design projects with goals, objectives and indicators that are shared across the portfolio, and counterfactuals are identified wherever possible, then monitoring impact is feasible. Making impact monitoring the norm, however, will require a culture change within the conservation community.