Abstract
This study investigated how government and non-governmental conservation organisations monitor and evaluate Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) programs and projects in wildlife protected areas (PAs) and adjacent communities in Western Uganda, and the impact of their monitoring and evaluation (M&E) on programs and management. CBNRM (in short, referred to as community conservation) is a wildlife and natural resources management approach involving state and local communities, that is aimed at achieving biological diversity conservation in Protected Areas and socioeconomic development for adjacent communities. This necessitates continuous monitoring, reporting and evaluation processes. The Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), and non-governmental conservation organisations monitor and evaluate community conservation programs and projects in PAs and adjacent communities in Western Uganda.
The study therefore examines how conservation organisations’ structures and institutional designs promote M&E, its practices, systems and procedures. It also examines the level of M&E effectiveness and impact on community conservation and organisations’ management. Its principal argument is that M&E is often not done in conformity with well-established international standards and principles. This obscures the generation of useable evidence and affects its utilisation for designing and implementing conservation programs.
The research was conducted in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Lake Mburo National Park, Rwenzori Mountains National Park, and adjacent communities in Western Uganda. The UWA, three non-governmental conservation organisations and local communities participated. A qualitative research design and ethnographic approach was used. Data was collected through in-depth interviews, participant observation, informal interviews, and document analysis.
The study findings highlighted, among others, that organisational structures for M&E are highly centralised with staff based at headquarters instead of the field units where projects are implemented thereby limiting its robustness. Furthermore, M&E processes are not guided by any organisational policies, rules, guidelines, or plans.
XIV
Government and non-governmental conservation organisations used M&E to measure program implementation processes but not results. As a result, they are unable to assess how their programs have affected the biodiversity conservation and local communities’ socioeconomic development. However, M&E processes generate evidence to show PAs contributions to surrounding communities and demonstrate accountability to donors.
The study also finds that while significant M&E information about implementation processes is produced, there is limited utilisation in management decision-making, planning, budget allocation and performance improvement. The ‘politics of M&E’ was identified as a critical factor affecting M&E practice, effectiveness and information utilisation. Consequently, community conservation programs and local communities do not benefit from the performance information generated through M&E.
This study proposes a five-layer M&E model for developing and conducting M&E for community conservation more effectively. It is proposed in this model that conservation organisations should develop M&E policies and guidelines, arrange organisation structures for M&E, design M&E systems, promote information utilisation and address the M&E environment to make monitoring and evaluation more effective for assessing and improving CBNRM projects.
Key words:
Monitoring, Evaluation, Monitoring and Evaluation, Community-Based Natural Resources Management, Conservation, Community Conservation