Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T12:07:39.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluating the performance of a decade of Save The Tiger Fund's investments to save the world's last wild tigers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2007

BRIAN GRATWICKE*
Affiliation:
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20036, USA
JOHN SEIDENSTICKER
Affiliation:
Department of Conservation Biology, Smithsonian's National Zoological Park, 3001 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington DC 20008, USA
MAHENDRA SHRESTHA
Affiliation:
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20036, USA
KARIN VERMILYE
Affiliation:
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20036, USA
MATTHEW BIRNBAUM
Affiliation:
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20036, USA
*
*Correspondence: Dr Brian Gratwicke Tel: +1 202 857 5156 e-mail: brian.gratwicke@gmail.com

Summary

This is the first attempt to analyse the performance of US 12.6 million invested by Save The Tiger Fund (STF) in more than 250 tiger conservation grants in 13 tiger-range countries. We devised a simple implementation evaluation method to assess performance on an ordinal scale using archival documents from project grant files. Performance was scored based on whether the grantee managed to achieve what they set out to do as articulated in their project proposal. On average, STF grantee project outputs exceeded their original objectives, but many confounding variables made it difficult to determine the ecological outcomes of grantees’ conservation actions. Successful projects were usually collaborative in nature with high community visibility and support, their results were disseminated effectively, and they informed policy, measured outputs, were grounded by strong sound science, supported by government agencies, attracted new donors and delivered results even when political factors created difficult working environments. The poorly performing projects were associated with one or more of the following factors: poor tracking of results, deviation from the proposal, poorly defined goals, lack of capacity, poor evaluation practices, lack of political support, weak transparency, work at inappropriate scales or purchase of high-tech equipment that was never used.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcamo, J., Ash, N., Butler, C., Callicott, J., Capistrano, D., Carpenter, S., Castilla, J., Chambers, R., Chopra, K. & Cropper, A. (2003) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: a Framework for Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press: 137 pp.Google Scholar
Anon. (2002) The state of the nation's ecosystems: measuring the lands, waters, and living resources of the United States. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Anon. (2006 a) The Millennium Development Goals Report 2006. United Nations, New York, USA: 32 pp. [www document]. URL http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2006/MDGReport2006.pdfGoogle Scholar
Anon. (2006 b) Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund [www document]. URL http://webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pcsrfGoogle Scholar
Avindan, D. (2003) Food habits of tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Wildlife Institute of India, Dhera Dun, India: 50 pp.Google Scholar
Baral, N. & Heinen, J.T. (2006) The Maoists people's war and conservation in Nepal. Politics and the Life Sciences 24 (1–2): 211.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, E., Palmer, M., Allan, J., Alexander, G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S., Carr, J., Clayton, S., Dahm, C. & Follstad-Shah, J. (2005) Synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308: 636637.Google Scholar
Carbone, C., Christie, S., Conforti, K., Coulson, T., Franklin, N., Ginsberg, J.R., Griffiths, M., Holden, J., Kawanishi, K., Kinnaird, M., Laidlaw, R., Lynam, A., Macdonald, D.W., Martyr, D., McDougal, C., Nath, L., O'Brien, T., Seidensticker, J., Smith, D.J.L., Sunquist, M., Tilson, R. & Wan Shahruddin, W.N. (2001) The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. Animal Conservation 4: 7579.Google Scholar
Debroy, B. (2000) Some issues in law reform in India. In: Governance, Decentralization and Reform in China, India and Russia, ed. Dethier, J.J., pp. 339368, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Heydlauff, A., Wikramanayake, E., Bryja, G., Forrest, J., Ginsberg, J., Klenzendorf, S., Leimgruber, P., O'Brien, T., Sanderson, E., Seidensticker, J. & Songer, M. (2006) Setting priorities for the conservation and recovery of wild tigers: 2005–2015. A user's guide. WWF, WCS, Smithsonian, and NFWF-STF, Washington, DC, and New York, USA [www document]. URL http://www.savethetigerfund.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Full_ReportsGoogle Scholar
Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Wikramanayake, E., Ginsberg, J., Sanderson, E., Seidensticker, J., Forrest, J., Bryja, G., Heydlauff, A., Klenzendorf, S., Leimgruber, P., Mills, J., O'Brien, T.G., Shrestha, M., Simons, R. & Songer, M. (2007) The fate of wild tigers. BioScience 57 (6): 508514.Google Scholar
Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E., Robinson, J., Karanth, K.U., Rabinowitz, A., Olson, D., Mathew, T., Hedao, P., Connor, M., Hemley, G. & Bolze, D. (1997) A Framework for Identifying High Priority Areas and Actions for the Conservation of Tigers in the Wild. Washington, DC, USA: WWF, WCS.Google Scholar
Elmore, R.F. (1982) Backward mapping: implementation research and policy designs. In: Studying Implementation: Methodological and Administrative Issues, ed. Williams, W., Elmore, R.F., Hall, J.S., Jung, R., Kirst, M., MacManus, S.A., Narver, B.J., Nathan, R.P. & Yin, R.K., pp. 1835. Chatham, Kent, UK: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Ferraro, P.J. & Pattanayak, S.K. (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology 4: 482488.Google Scholar
Hayward, G.D., Miquelle, D.G., Smirnov, E.N. & Nations, C. (2002) Monitoring Amur tiger populations: characteristics of track surveys in snow. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 11501159.Google Scholar
Henry, L. (2004) A comparative study of traditional Chinese medicine markets in San Francisco and New York city. TRAFFIC North America, Washington, DC, USA [www document]. URL: http://www.traffic.org/content/489.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hockings, M. (2003) Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas. BioScience 53: 823832.Google Scholar
Jepson, P. & Canney, S. (2003) State of wild Asian elephant conservation 2003. Conservation Direct: 47 pp. [www document]. URL http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/jepson03-elephant.pdfGoogle Scholar
Johnsingh, A.J.T., Qureshi, Q., Goyal, S.P., Rawat, G.S., Ramesh, K., Ashish, D., Rajapandian, K. & Prasad, S. (2004) Conservation status of tiger and associated species in the Terai Arc Landscape. India Wildlife Institute of India, Dheradun, India.Google Scholar
Karanth, K.U. (1995) Estimating tiger Panthera tigris populations from camera-trap data using capture recapture models. Biological Conservation 71: 333338.Google Scholar
Karanth, K.U., Chundawat, R.S., Nichols, J.D. & Kumar, N.S. (2004) Estimation of tiger densities in the tropical dry forests of Panna, Central India, using photographic capture–recapture sampling. Animal Conservation 7: 285290.Google Scholar
Karanth, K.U., Nichols, J.D., Seidensticker, J., Dinerstein, E., Smith, J.L.D., McDougal, C., Johnsingh, A.J.T., Chundawat, R.S. & Thapar, V. (2003) Science deficiency in conservation practice: the monitoring of tiger populations in India. Animal Conservation 6: 141146.Google Scholar
Kawanishi, K. & Sunquist, M.E. (2004) Conservation status of tigers in a primary rainforest of Peninsular Malaysia. Biological Conservation 120: 329343.Google Scholar
Kleiman, D., Reading, R., Miller, B., Clark, T., Scott, J., Robinson, J., Wallace, R., Cabin, R. & Felleman, F. (2000) Improving the evaluation of conservation programs. Conservation Biology 14: 356365.Google Scholar
Miquelle, D.G., Merrill, T., Dunishenko, Y.M., Smirnov, E.N., Quigley, H., Pikunov, D.G. & Hornocker, M. (1999) A habitat protection plan for the Amur tiger: developing political and ecological criteria for a viable land-use plan. In: Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-dominated Landscapes, ed. Seidensticker, J., Christie, S. & Jackson, P., pp. 273295. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Narain, S., Panwar, H.S., Gadgil, M. & Singh, S. (2005) Joining the dots – tiger task force report. 2005 Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (Project Tiger), New Delhi, India [www document]. URL http://projecttiger.nic.in/TTF2005/pdf/full_report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Parrish, J., Braun, D. & Unnasch, R. (2003) Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. BioScience 53: 851860.Google Scholar
Rauscher, H. (1999) Ecosystem management decision support for federal forests in the United States: a review. Forest Ecology and Management 114: 173197.Google Scholar
Redford, K.H., Coppolillo, P., Sanderson, E.W., Fonseca, G., Dinerstein, E., Groves, C., Mace, G., Maginnis, S., Mittermeier, R.A., Noss, R., Olson, D., Robinson, J., Vedder, A. & Wright, M. (2003) Mapping the conservation landscape. Conservation Biology 17: 116131.Google Scholar
Rittel, H. & Webber, M. (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155169.Google Scholar
Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W. & Freeman, H.E. (2004) Evaluation: a Systematic Approach. London, UK: Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
Sanderson, E., Forrest, J., Loucks, C., Ginsberg, J., Dinerstein, E., Seidensticker, J., Leimgruber, P., Songer, M., Heydlauff, A., O'Brien, T., Bryja, G., Klenzendorf, S., & Wikramanayake, E. (2006) Setting Priorities for the Conservation and Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005–2015. The Technical Assessment. New York, NY and Washington, DC, USA: WCS, WWF, Smithsonian, and NFWF-STF.Google Scholar
Saterson, K., Christensen, N.L., Jackson, R.B., Kramer, R.A., Pimm, S.L., Smith, M.D. & Wiener, J. (2004) Disconnects in evaluating the relative effectiveness of conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 18: 597599.Google Scholar
Seidensticker, J., Christie, S. & Jackson, P., eds (1999) Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-dominated Landscapes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stem, C., Margolius, R., Salafsky, N. & Brown, M. (2005) Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: a review of trends and approaches. Conservation Biology 19: 295309.Google Scholar
Vaessen, J. & Todd, D. (2007) Methodological challenges in impact evaluation: the case of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Institute of Development Policy and Management, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, the Netherlands: 28 pp.Google Scholar
White, H. (2003) Using the MDGs to measure donor agency performance. In: Targeting Development: Critical Perspectives on the Millennium Development Goals, ed. Black, R. & White, H., pp. 4776. London, UK: Routelage.Google Scholar
Zhang, E. & Li, E. (2004) Trace WCS-ACCP review – five years (English and Chinese). Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar