International funding agencies: potential leaders of impact evaluation in protected areas?

Abstract

Globally, protected areas are the most commonly used tools to halt biodiversity loss. Yet, some are failing to adequately conserve the biodiversity they contain. There is an urgent need for knowledge on how to make them function more effectively. Impact evaluation methods provide a set of tools that could yield this knowledge. However, rigorous outcome-focused impact evaluation is not yet used as extensively as it could be in protected area management. We examine the role of international protected area funding agencies in facilitating the use of impact evaluation. These agencies are influential stakeholders as they allocate hundreds of millions of dollars annually to support protected areas, creating a unique opportunity to shape how the conservation funds are spent globally. We identify key barriers to the use of impact evaluation, detail how large funders are uniquely placed to overcome many of these, and highlight the potential benefits if impact evaluation is used more extensively.

A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas

“…Reliance on ad hoc data collection has greatly impeded our ability to fully assess to what extent PAs have had an impact on the persistence of biodiversity. It has been suggested that the large funding bodies such as the GEF could be potential leaders in the field, having the financial strength to develop and implement a more coherent monitoring system (Craigie, Barnes, Geldmann, & Woodley, ). However, as our results indicate, current efforts to collect such data have both been spatially biased and may be lacking in credibility.…”

Exceptional responders in conservation

“…Likewise, donors are increasingly interested in assessing and understanding intervention effectiveness (Redford & Taber Conservation Biology Volume 32, No. 3, 2018 2000; Craigie et al 2015). Despite increased attention on improving conservation responses, however, understanding of what works and why is still limited (Ferraro & Hanauer 2014).…”

Understanding local‐scale drivers of biodiversity outcomes in terrestrial protected areas

“…This lack of measurement leads to a lack of information about the factors that influence PA outcomes and subsequently limits decision‐making ability of managers and policy makers . One cause of inadequate evaluation is that PA budgets are limited, and managers are often reluctant to divert scarce resources away from management actions to monitoring and evaluation . Some agencies have made substantial progress in implementing monitoring and evaluation frameworks over the last 20 years (e.g., see Refs.…”

“…[17][18][19] One cause of inadequate evaluation is that PA budgets are limited, 20 and managers are often reluctant to divert scarce resources away from management actions to monitoring and evaluation. 21,22 Some agencies have made substantial progress in implementing monitoring and evaluation frameworks over the last 20 years (e.g., see Refs. [23][24][25], but experience suggests that such systems are vulnerable to budget cuts, and monitoring and investment often remain ad hoc and usually lack secure long-term funding.…”