MainStream
M a i n S t r e a m Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd
ABN 53 094 688 285 _____________________________________________________
Overview comments on performance and monitoring for the Revive our Wetlands program 2005
Background:
For the 2004 year, following m y review of the m onitoring and evaluation procedures used for the first Revive program (2001-2003), a range of modifications were introduced aimed at standardising the format of the m onitoring data for each site and sim plifying the task of aggregating the annual performance results.
An additional innovation in the 2004 overview report was to introduce the concept of a
‘traffic light s’ scoring system which allowed for a quick overview of performance, site-by-site and across all sites collectively. The ‘traffi c light’ scores applied in 2004 were determined by m yself based on an appraisal of the standardised m onitoring sheets submitted for each site. Th e ‘traffic lights’ were well received by both Conservation Volunteers Australia and BHP Billiton and so, for 2005, they were introduced into the reporting proforma for each site, and those com pleting the end-of-year reports were asked to provide self-assessm ents using the sam e system.
The perception is that this m ove toward self-assessm ent using the ‘traffic lights’ system has worked well for 2005 and should continue for 2006. For further comments regarding fut ure developments see the ‘Where to next’ section below.
Method:
As was the case for 2004, monitoring at each of the focus sites (and sub-sites) was standardised, with site action plans translated into a simple, single format which grouped together like-activities under the following ten them es;
(i)vegetation m anagement (seed collection, seedling raising, stem planting
etc),
(ii)weed control or eradication,
(iii)feral animal control or eradication,
(iv)surveys and monitoring,
(v)grazing stock exclusion,
(vi)erosion control,
(vii)water quality im provement/monitoring,
(viii)gross pollution clean-ups,
(ix)visitor management and access, and
(x)education and awareness raising.
For each activity, annual targets were then set, and, where appropriate, photo-point or
‘before’ and ‘after’-style m onitoring encouraged. Wherever feasible, an attem pt was m ade to set quantitative targets. As indicated above, at the end of the calendar year, performance information was provided back to Libby McIntyre and myself using the standard format and with self-assessed ‘traffic light’ scores for each activity where a target was proposed.
Results:
Table 1 gives a summary of the ‘traffic light’ scores fo r each site and also in aggregate for each activity them e (at the bottom of the table). The table also shows where photopoint or ‘before and after’ photographs were taken.
Reviewing Revive’s 2005 performance in this way gives an overview but doesn’t cont ain finer detail. More detailed information is available within the individual site reports at https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e315376969.html,/m onitoring
Performance in 2005:
Total and site-by-site summation:
Across the 16 sites or sub-sites where Revive volunteers were active in 2005 (com pared
to 14 sites in 2004), 153 actions and achievem ents against their associated targets were reported. Of these:
90, or close to 59%, were reported to have achieved or surpassed the target set.
for 19 activities (12.4%) the target was largely achieved (>75% of the numerical target),
for 13 activities (8.5%), progress toward the target was only partially achieved (< 50% of the numerical target), and
for 31 actions (20.3%), no progress was m ade or possible. Examination of the more detailed reports indicates that in m ost cases the proposed activities that were not undertaken either will be in the coming year or were deferred due to som e
clim atic (drought) or logistical issue.
An encouraging result is that there continued to be an upward trend in the use of photo-based m onitoring by Revive site projects, either through established photopoints that will be regularly revisited, or ‘before and after’ photographs.
Thematic results
Reference to Table 1 shows that the m ajority of Revive site projects are undertaking activities associated with weed control and eradication (24.2%), followed closely by vegetation m anagement (seed collection, seedling raising, stem planting etc) at 23.5%, and education and awareness raising activities with 21.5%. For each of these them es there was a strong positive outcom e, with targets being achieved in 65-70% of situations.
Comparison between 2004 and 2005 results:
Table 2 com pares the performance against nominated targets in 2004 and 2005. It shows that perform ance recorded for 2005 in relation to targets being achieved or exceeded was slightly lower than in 2004. However, there was very little difference in the percentage of activities where no progress was m ade or possible, indicating (as Table 2 shows) higher levels of activities where the target was partially achieved. Overall, 2005 could be summarised as a year where Revive again achieved a very high com pletion rate against specified targets, although when com pared with 2004, about 10% of activities where only partially com pleted.
Table 2: Comparison of performance outcomes for 2004 and 2005
‘Where to next’:
The performance m onitoring system introduced in 2004 and then fine-tuned in 2005 is working well and delivering standardis ed data that allows for this annual ‘snap shot’ of achievem ents. The system has added rigour to the process and is encouraging those undertaking the work to be very quantitative with target setting; a significant step-up from Revive I. The system has enhanced the area of accountability for the resources being provided to support these works, showing as it does the types of works being supported and levels of performance being achieved. A continuation of this m onitoring system is recommended for 2006, the final year of the current funding round of Revive.
It is understood that at present discussions are underway in relation to a possible Revive III. It is to be hoped that this com es about as both Revive I and II have been able to clearly demonstrate the value for m oney, and leverage the program offers, as well as the tangible short and longer-term legacies of the works undertaken. Should there be a Revive III, a continuation of the current m onitoring system is strongly recommended, and with it m odifications to the project design/application process to align these two key aspects m ore closely. Aligning the application process to the m onitoring structure will greatly streamline both processes.
Dr Bill Phillips
Director
22 March 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postal address – 36 Badimara Street, Waramanga, ACT. 2611, Australia
Telephone - within Australia 02 62 81 7470
- international + 61 2 62 81 7470
Mobile telephone – 04 38 81 7470
Email – mainst ream@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e315376969.html,.au
Web sit e – https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e315376969.html,.au
Table 1: Su mmary presentation of Revive’s 2005 performance at each site and against the appropriate management action theme. See below for the numerical codes used in the table.
= target(s) achieved or exceeded, = target almost achieved (>75% of numerical target), = target not achieved (<50% of numerical target), = no action taken or possible
P = photopoint established, photos taken, before and after photos taken where appropriate
5