biodiversity conservation: applying new criteria to assess excellence

15
This article was downloaded by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] On: 21 December 2014, At: 20:10 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Total Quality Management & Business Excellence Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20 Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence Simon A. Black a , Helen M.R. Meredith a b & Jim J. Groombridge a a Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent , Canterbury, UK b Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London , London, UK Published online: 23 Nov 2011. To cite this article: Simon A. Black , Helen M.R. Meredith & Jim J. Groombridge (2011) Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 22:11, 1165-1178, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2011.624766 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2011.624766 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Upload: jim-j

Post on 16-Apr-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

This article was downloaded by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich]On: 21 December 2014, At: 20:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Total Quality Management & BusinessExcellencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

Biodiversity conservation: Applyingnew criteria to assess excellenceSimon A. Black a , Helen M.R. Meredith a b & Jim J. Groombridge aa Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School ofAnthropology and Conservation, University of Kent , Canterbury,UKb Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London , London, UKPublished online: 23 Nov 2011.

To cite this article: Simon A. Black , Helen M.R. Meredith & Jim J. Groombridge (2011) Biodiversityconservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence, Total Quality Management & BusinessExcellence, 22:11, 1165-1178, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2011.624766

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2011.624766

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

Simon A. Blacka∗, Helen M.R. Mereditha,b and Jim J. Groombridgea

aDurrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation,University of Kent, Canterbury, UK; bInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London,London, UK

Biodiversity conservation is a discipline that has developed from amateur pursuits bywildlife enthusiasts in the 1960s to today’s complex community of multi-nationalNGOs, government agencies and research institutions. The conservation sector is largelyfunded by government grants, private donations and sponsorship, and unsurprisinglyfaces increasing scrutiny in the current economic downturn. Furthermore, the observedfailure to halt the decline of biodiversity provides additional pressure to organisations.In this context, business excellence models which have been utilised across many othersectors for evaluation, benchmarking and improvement planning could prove valuablein influencing the effectiveness of conservation management. This paper presentsa sector-specific Conservation Excellence Model which describes how conservationmanagers can better understand how scientific processes and results can be alignedwith financial and organisational measures of success. The relevance of the modelis illustrated through evaluation of two well-documented species conservationprogrammes, and experience of adapting the assessment process to evaluate a field-based conservation programme is also presented. The potential benefits of using theConservation Excellence Model include improved objective setting, more effectivemeasures of biological success and clearer evaluation of conservation processes. Thepaper illustrates how assessment models can support improvement in organisations stillunfamiliar with concepts of excellence.

Keywords: conservation effectiveness; management; EFQM; evaluation;improvement; planning; benchmarking

Why improved effectiveness is needed in biodiversity conservation

In 1992 the International Convention on Biological Diversity was signed by national gov-

ernments with a view to halting the decline of global biodiversity, yet in the intervening 20

years there has been a notable lack of progress (Butchart et al., 2010). Consequently, con-

servation organisations now face increasing expectations that investments should result in

effective outputs (Nicholls, 2004). This has followed an emerging trend since the 1990s

towards increased monitoring and evaluation of conservation programmes, either to

satisfy donors (e.g. governments, private donors and corporate sponsors) or to bring

accountability to project managers (Kapos et al., 2008). Investments in conservation

can be costly (Fischer & Lindenmayer, 2000); examples include grey wolf reintroductions

in the USA ($6.7 million over 8 years), California condor conservation efforts ($1 million

per year) and the golden lion tamarin (a small South American primate recovered at a cost

of $22,000 per surviving individual). Wherever projects demonstrate deficiency, bureauc-

racy or inefficiency, they inevitably consume resources at the expense of other

ISSN 1478-3363 print/ISSN 1478-3371 online

# 2011 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2011.624766

http://www.tandfonline.com

∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Total Quality Management

Vol. 22, No. 11, November 2011, 1165–1178

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 20:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 3: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

conservation initiatives. Conservation remains a sector that is relatively naıve in terms of

application of management practice. Can business excellence provide models for evaluat-

ing and enabling improved effectiveness of conservation interventions?

Evidence from business suggests that a TQM or ‘Excellence’ approach enables

achievement of higher levels of business performance (ECBE, 1999; GAO, 1991). The

Excellence philosophy is actively promoted by national and regional awards such as the

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in the USA, the European Foundation for

Quality Management (EFQM) European Excellence Award and the Deming Prize in

Japan (Nakhai & Neves, 1994) and the most commonly used models for assessing and

improving organisational effectiveness have arisen from these management awards

(Black & Porter, 1996; Oakland, Tanner, & Gadd, 2002). Since Excellence models

have proven useful in organisations of varying size and type, across a variety of cultures

and languages (Sila & Ebrahimpour, 2003) and in sectors as diverse as manufacturing,

education, health and the arts (Goldschmidt & Goldschmidt, 2001; Vallejo et al., 2006;

Zink & Schmidt, 1995), these frameworks might also be helpful in the conservation sector.

The EFQM Excellence model is, internationally, probably the most widely used frame-

work and, like the Baldrige National Quality Award criteria, is built on a set of concepts

found in organisations that have sustained customer satisfaction, long-term operational

best performance and continuing financial success (Black & Porter, 1996; ECBE, 1999;

GAO, 1991). Excellence concepts, such as a focus on results, management by fact, a

systems perspective and continuous improvement should resonate strongly with conserva-

tion biologists. Additionally, the EFQM Excellence Model (EFQM, 2003) is not a prescrip-

tive framework and does not demand implementation of ‘best practice’. This characteristic

is useful in the conservation setting, since supposed ‘best practice’ in one situation might be

wholly inappropriate in another, for reasons of geography, climate, species, habitats or tra-

ditions of local human communities. The EFQM model instead encourages users to focus on

understanding their system of work to facilitate improvement, and it is this perspective

which may offer new insights for managers of conservation. If the language of Excellence

can be made relevant to conservation, then an excellence model may be an effective tool to

identify areas in which conservation programmes are underperforming and could improve.

Conservation performance evaluations have historically tended to focus on inventories

of completed activities and dollars invested, but in recent years the trend has started to

move towards assessment of ‘outcomes’ (species and habitat improvements), for which

various methodologies have been developed (Ferraro & Pattanayak, 2006). However an

excellence-based approach could offer new benefits to the conservation community

including:

. Understanding the wider issues concerning their organisation

. An efficient focus on relevant data and measures

. A better understanding of links between results and the approaches taken

. A balanced consideration of short- and long-term pressures

. A standard framework for discussing organisational improvement with outsiders

Business excellence in the context of biodiversity conservation

Since the 1970s, conservation management has revolved around development and

implementation of formal conservation management planning methods, but these

approaches have been criticised for being excessively restrictive and often detrimental

to the immediate recovery needs of the species concerned (Boersma, Kareiva, Fagan,

1166 S.A. Black et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 20:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 4: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

Clark, & Hoekstra, 2001; Clark, Hoekstra, Boersma, & Kareiva, 2002). More recent con-

servation management frameworks have been developed, including the International

Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Framework for Assessing Effectiveness in Pro-

tected Areas (Hockings, Stolton, Leverington, Dudley, & Courrau, 2006) and the Open

Standards for the Practice of Conservation (CMP, 2004), but these are limited to assessing

management processes and do not consider performance nor issues such as human

resources and financial management. Business excellence models have the advantage of

being focused on the effectiveness of the overall system or organisation that embodies a

conservation programme from its design and implementation through to its operation

and review.

The EFQM Excellence model appears relevant to the types of organisations involved

in conservation and has already been successfully applied in many countries, in both large

and small organisations, and in government, public service, non-government, commercial,

industrial and educational sectors. The generic management language used in the EFQM

model nevertheless includes some terminology that is unfamiliar to conservation pro-

fessionals so a degree of translation is needed to relate the concepts of excellence to a con-

servation setting. Black and Groombridge (2010) offer this translation, the ‘Conservation

Excellence Model’ (Figure 1), which adapts the EFQM and Baldrige Award concepts into

a conservation context.

The translation of concepts by Black and Groombridge (2010) include the definition of

‘customer’, the separation of biodiversity from human and organisational results and the

definition of ‘core conservation processes’. The Conservation Excellence Model places bio-

diversity as the ‘customer’ of conservation: biological results, trends, scientific models and

projections relating to species or their habitats are considered within the criterion

Figure 1. Conservation Excellence Model: an interpretation of the EFQM model in a conservationcontext, showing Oakland et al.’s (2002) categorisation of People (A), Process (B) and Performance(B) criteria by linking ‘approach’ (implementation) with ‘results’ (value).

Total Quality Management 1167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 20:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 5: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

‘Biodiversity Results’. Although this criterion covers a potentially complex issue, involving

interactions of animal populations, plants, landscapes and geophysical variables within eco-

systems, these aspects are the ‘bread and butter’ concerns of conservation professionals, and

are more clearly understood in the profession than other ‘management’ indicators. The ‘Bio-

diversity Results’ criterion is equivalent to the EFQM criterion ‘Customer Results’ (EFQM,

2003). Other results measures with significant practical influence on the work of conserva-

tion (time/milestones, budgets, technical outcomes and deliverables are placed in the cri-

terion ‘Conservation Program Results’, which is the equivalent of ‘Business Results’ in

the EFQM model (EFQM, 2003) and include measures of performance against objectives,

financial results and project milestones.

Since volunteers and local community members are often directly engaged in conser-

vation work alongside official employees, measures of employee and human community

results are included in ‘People and Local Community Results’. Levels of involvement in

the programme (e.g. numbers of community volunteers, participants in meetings) are

included alongside employee metrics in this criterion, the equivalent of ‘People Results’

(EFQM, 2003). Wider societal impacts remain in a criterion ‘Impact on Wider Society’,

including indirect measures such as human well-being (e.g. safety, welfare, income),

measures of human–wildlife conflict (e.g. predation, crop raiding, wildlife exploitation,

or incidents of human interference and harassment) or human-use effects (e.g. hunting,

harvesting). These societal aspects are important as wildlife becomes increasingly

impacted by human influences.

The approach criteria of the model including technical conservation work processes

(‘Core Conservation Processes’) and the generic management processes (Leadership,

People and Community Management, Resource Management) broadly reflect the cri-

terion structure of the EFQM model. As in the EFQM and Baldrige models, learning

and feedback are important features of the overall model and this aspect of using

data to inform further improvements is inherent across the criteria. A further important

consideration concerns the fact that while conservation recovery may take decades to

complete, many conservation programmes themselves are relatively transient, perhaps

2–5 years in duration, so suitable exit strategies to establish sustainable work required

beyond the remit of the programme must be considered as part of the evaluation of the

current programme. Examples might include training of local volunteers or government

workers, the managed hand-over of data to local representatives, the establishment of

long-term monitoring, or the establishment of land rights and governance of protected

areas.

Like its business counterparts, the Conservation Excellence Model provides conserva-

tion managers with a core rationale based on:

. Management by fact, rather than personal or political agenda or other preconceptions

. A focus on biodiversity, species survival and habitat needs

. A focus on results and the creation of a value chain to deliver outcomes

. A focus on the future and sustainability of species’ populations and landscapes

. Continuous improvement, adaptability and innovation in management interventions

. A systems perspective, accounting for effects both internal and external to the

programme. Valuing staff and community partners and engaging them to improve the programme. Societal responsibility, accounting for human needs and societal constraints

The Conservation Excellence Model can be used (i) to identify if correct approaches and

relevant performance measures are being applied, (ii) to decide whether the design of the

1168 S.A. Black et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 20:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 6: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

programme and its policy, people and activities are consistent with its overall intended

purpose, (iii) to rate the programme (or a range of different programmes) using a

scoring system to evaluate effectiveness or to make comparisons. Assessments can be con-

ducted by an individual or a team using existing data, policy, budgets, reports and inter-

views with key personnel and other stakeholders, followed by a consensus assessment

of this information against the model criteria.

Some commentators have criticised the EFQM assessment and scoring processes as

overly bureaucratic and that their use tends to distract managers from key priorities for

improvement (Seddon, 1998; Tanner & Tantawy, 2001). We provide examples of a top

level assessment of established conservation programmes using the Conservation

Excellence Model to identify whether the model provides any useful and important

insights that would benefit each programme plus a third example of how assessment

can be conducted in a field-based programme with its attendant constraints on time

and resources.

A desktop assessment: conservation of the Po’ouli; an endemic bird of Hawaii

The Po’ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma) is an important bird species; unknown to local

people, absent from historical accounts and entirely new to science on its first sighting

in 1973 (Baker, 1998), yet within 30 years of its remarkable discovery the species was

extinct. The Po’ouli is a Hawaiian honeycreeper endemic to Maui, and soon after its dis-

covery, the bird’s apparent rarity precipitated its listing under the US Endangered Species

Act. A serious reduction in population was observed through the 1980s and 1990s and

despite several last ditch attempts at recovery involving the last three known individuals

the species has not been seen since 2005 (Groombridge et al., 2003; IUCN 2009; Vander-

Werf et al., 2003). An environmental journalist who has reviewed the demise of this

species, suggests that its extinction was caused by a combination of ‘pigs, rats and bureau-

cratic dithering’ (Powell, 2008). A range of publications concerning the species’ recovery

programme was reviewed to enable a high-level assessment of the programme using the

Conservation Excellence Model criteria (Black & Groombridge, 2010). Data and obser-

vations, based on documented evidence were grouped into each of the model criteria

for which a brief summary is presented in Figure 2.

The broad context of the species; its status and history (shown in the results criteria in

grey boxes in Figure 2) suggest that both habitat protection and ecological study were

appropriate for conserving the Po’ouli in the 1970s. Programme workers needed both to

establish a better understanding of the bird’s biology and to protect and enhance suitable

habitat, particularly by removing feral pigs which disturbed the soil invertebrates that con-

stituted much of the bird’s diet. In reality, throughout the 1980s and 1990s a programme of

fencing and pig eradication was achieved (albeit slowly and erratically), however the

understanding of the bird species itself remained poor; ecological data collection was

sporadic and little was learned about the bird’s biological needs (Powell, 2008). By the

mid 1980s ornithological survey data already revealed the Po’ouli population to be in

serious decline.

During this period, precious little new knowledge was obtained about the species or its

wider ecosystem. For example, a single nest was discovered in 1986, and although mon-

itored by biologists and observed to be poorly located (with chicks exposed to climatic

conditions), the clutch was observed to die in the nest when intervention might have pro-

vided important learning. The ‘precautionary principle’ (Foster, Vechia, & Repacholi,

2000), which assumes a worst-case status for the demise of the species and demands a

Total Quality Management 1169

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 20:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 7: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

Figure 2. Assessment of the Po’ouli programme using the model (Baker, 2001; DLNR, 1999; DLNR & USFWS, 1999; VanderWerf et al., 2003).

11

70

S.A

.B

lack

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 20:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 8: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

strategy to directly increase the population (e.g. through captive breeding) was not applied.

Instead, from the 1970s to the late 1990s managers at the top of the hierarchy maintained

long-term habitat recovery as the priority despite the fact that biological survey results

indicated a need for emergency population recovery.

A review of ‘Core Conservation Processes’ confirms the inappropriate focus on habitat

renewal processes (i.e. not fundamental to the short-term needs of the species). Until the

late 1990s few processes addressed declining population numbers. When a change in pri-

orities finally occurred, it was too late. The programme was designed around misidentified,

inappropriate processes. Habitat renewal strategies (to encourage population growth in the

wild) typically see recovery of vegetation over a 10-year period, yet the last, ageing birds

needed success in a 1-year breeding cycle; management priorities did not match the emer-

gency needs of the species.

A review of ‘People and Local Community Management’ (staff and community vol-

unteers) and ‘Resources Management’ reveals that decisions could only be made by senior

people and necessary resources and permissions were typically delivered only after signifi-

cant delays (e.g. permission to initiate captive breeding, or to protect wild nest sites).

Overall, ‘Leadership’ of the programme was exemplified by bureaucratic hierarchies,

while the philosophical preferences of leaders (for wider ecosystem recovery rather

than hands-on interventions with birds) had a negative impact, causing the use of ineffec-

tive methods across the programme.

In summary, a desktop assessment of documented data and activities in the Po’ouli

programme identified a number of actions to improve its management. If these actions

had been identified and applied, managers could have established a new set of priorities,

success measures, budget allocations and methods of implementation. These actions

would have led to a very different approach to the recovery of this species and may

have achieved a very different outcome.

Results criteria:

. Identify critical results (population recovery) using species and ecological data.

Policy and strategy:

. Devise objectives that relate to conserving the species, not a philosophical stance.

. Establish success measures that relate to purpose and guide work priorities.

. Revise plans according to feedback from data or changes in the wider context.

Conservation processes:

. Identify processes which deliver new knowledge on the biology of the Po’ouli.

. Identify and adapt methods to deliver tangible results (e.g. captive breeding).

People and community management and resources:

. Get the right experts involved to ensure an immediate increase in population size.

. Make resources available (i.e. equipment, staff, data) for priority work processes.

Leadership:

. Establish purposeful leadership; focus effort and actions on critical priorities.

. Authority for relevant decisions should be delegated to experts doing the work so

that actions are focused, timely and effective.

Total Quality Management 1171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 20:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 9: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

An alternative case: assessing conservation of the black-footed ferret

The managed recovery of North America’s black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), one of

the world’s rarest mammals, is considered a more successful conservation intervention

(IUCN, 2009) involving a programme which, unlike the Po’ouli, has adapted to changing

priorities over time. This ferret species is a predator of prairie dogs, and has been greatly

affected by agricultural land use, eradication of prey through pest control and the impact

of diseases (Williams, Mills, Kwiatkowski, Thorne, & Boerger-Fields, 1994; Williams,

Thome, Appel, & Belitsky, 1988). The last population of about 130 ferrets existed in

Wyoming, but from 1987 to 1990 the population was maintained entirely in captivity

(Wisely, Santymire, Livieri, Mueting, & Howard, 2008). When local captive-breeding

specialists did not take advice on bio-security from external zoo experts, an outbreak of

plague in the ferret breeding facility nearly wiped out the last remaining ferrets (Clark,

1997). After this near-disaster, the programme introduced improved breeding facilities

and protocols, established a systematic captive-release programme including pre-condition-

ing and vaccination, and identified a range of release sites across Mexico, USA and Canada

which has revived the wild population (BFFRIT, 2009). We assessed the black-footed ferret

programme against the Conservation Excellence Model (Figure 3) to examine whether

further improvements could be identified:

Results: negative rancher views of ferrets, reduced prey populations, few nest sites

. Identify critical factors to ensure habitat protection as well as species recovery.

Policy and strategy: inconsistency in communication versus resource allocation.

. Planning does not finish merely with the production of the plan itself but should

include the management of objective setting, budgets and resource allocation.

Core processes: not identified/resourced, nor compared to world class approaches.

. Identify the correct processes and use them to progress the desired plan.

. Ensure results inform policy and future direction (a learning process).

People and resources: limitations are caused by a hierarchical bureaucracy.

. Simplify the complex set of partner organisations (federal, state, zoos, research).

. Identify and use relevant experts, even in a consultative capacity.

. Allow people on the ground to make decisions and use resources.

Leadership: leaders did not appear to be compelled to tackle problems of organisation,

politics, information, decision-making, resource allocation and communication.

. Hierarchical structures exacerbate problems and must be removed by leaders.

. Technical information rather than political preferences should influence leaders’

decisions, if conservation goals are to be achieved.

In the case of the black-footed ferret programme, problems with policy, resources and

authority were not addressed (Clark, 1997) since the issues generally sat outside the

specific conservation remit of the programme; in a nutshell, scientists focused on problems

of science not organisation design and effectiveness. It was failure in the latter that nearly

led to the extinction of the black-footed ferret. Evaluation using the Conservation Excel-

lence Model raises the question: is the organisation operating successfully and learning to

improve? For the ferret programme up to the mid 1990s, poor results, slow decision-

1172 S.A. Black et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 20:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 10: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

Figure 3. Black-footed ferret programme assessment (Anderson, Forrest, Clark, & Richardson, 1986; BFFRIT, 2009; Clark, 1997; Hess, 1995; Reading & Kellert,1993; Williams et al., 1994).

To

tal

Qu

ality

Ma

na

gem

ent

11

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 20:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 11: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

making, poor resource utilisation, weak technical approaches and ineffective leadership

are consistently raised as problems.

Previously, the black-footed ferret programme had consistently struggled, but since

1996 a more balanced approach has been applied (BFFRIT, 2009) albeit at significant

cost and delay. Our observation is that an assessment using the Conservation Excellence

Model would have highlighted the organisational weaknesses in the programme at a

much earlier date. Improvements could have been implemented, enabling savings in

effort, time, money and resources. This would also have reduced the repeated,

unnecessary and catastrophic cycles of loss in the ferret population over the years of

its recovery.

A case study in East Africa: the practicalities of assessing a field conservation

programme

The conservation biologist whether a line manager or a remote project supervisor has a

number of challenges to face when conducting an assessment on a field project. In

general, conservation programmes are relatively resource-limited, so a formal assessment

visit is difficult to accommodate. The nature of the work, in difficult-to-access locations,

often with limited or no office accommodation, means that informal discussion is an

important data-collection method. In addition, visitors are often accommodated in the

same location as programme employees, with the assessors being more ‘embedded’ in

the operation. This provides a range of informal opportunities to understand the pro-

gramme and how it operates. Assessors need to use a process which has a number of adap-

tations from the established award-style assessment often used in other sectors. As an

example, a recent assessment of an amphibian conservation programme conducted in

East Africa by the authors followed the following process.

The assessment was conducted over a 6-day period by third-party reviewers during a

project review visit. The visit included a number of separated geographical work locations,

involving significant rough-road travel. Information was gathered by attending formal pre-

sentations by programme employees and conducting in-depth discussions with programme

leaders, employees and external stakeholders. Additional informal discussions throughout

the visit were used to verify the information that had been collected. The assessors fol-

lowed a pro-forma document covering the criteria of the model and also took informal

notes throughout the visit. Notes were updated at the end of each day and a formal col-

lation of information against the 32 sub-criteria of the model occurred at the end of the

visit. The assessment process included:

(1) Collection of evidence from documentation (e.g. meeting minutes and project

reports), interview notes and informal notes, summarised in an assessment

booklet of 32 sub-criteria.

(2) Identification of strengths and areas for improvement with reference to the data

collected and a generic scoring scale (Approach/Deployment for processes and

Results/Scope for results).

(3) A scoring process, used solely by the assessors in the knowledge of the programme

leader to inform recommendations. The scores were not shared widely as it was

decided that a score in itself would have limited value if shared with the pro-

gramme participants at this stage, particularly in the absence of relevant

benchmarks.

1174 S.A. Black et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 20:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 12: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

(4) Outline recommendations were summarised for discussion with programme

managers.

On this particular programme in East Africa, the employed field team was small (five

direct employees), but the programme involved a diverse range of community participants

(e.g. farmers and other land users). This required assessors to discuss issues and collect

data from employees, programme trustees and various external stakeholders and commu-

nity partners. The assessment was conducted informally as part of a normal process of

project review. Assessors needed to be adept at utilising additional sources of data such

as the minutes of formal meetings conducted for other purposes during the visit period,

for which the assessors had reason to attend. Assessors conducted their work with an atti-

tude of support and assistance, not as an adversarial ‘audit’, and the response on the part of

the programme’s employees was both positive and receptive. The assessors were careful to

maintain a courteous, respectful and positive relationship with programme participants,

remaining mindful of cross-cultural issues.

Although the detailed outcomes and recommendations of the assessment remain con-

fidential to the programme itself, the benefits gained from the use of the Conservation

Excellence Model in this instance can be summarised as follows:

. All issues relevant to the effective management of the programme were considered,

not just those relating to science, budgets or some other preferred perspective.. Although data were collected through a relatively informal process, the use of a

document summarising the model criteria ensured a comprehensive process.. The straightforward language and layout of the model enabled clear discussion with

programme managers and stakeholders on relevant issues.. Organisations are increasingly aware of assessment procedures as these are being

adopted universally to improve the impact of conservation actions. In East Africa,

the programme participants had already been through a similar process with

another donor and were well-disposed towards assessment.. Future score benchmarking will be possible to illustrate progress made by the pro-

gramme in terms of results and the effectiveness of changes in approach.

Given that the assessors were visiting the NGO in East Africa to help to develop its conser-

vation programmes for the future, the attitude of participating employees, volunteers and

stakeholders was incredibly helpful and truthful as they realised that the advantages of accu-

rately communicating both the strengths and weaknesses of their projects to improve future

project proposals which were being jointly developed. Therefore the assessment process

was perceived as having clear benefits, e.g. helping to overcome challenges and weaknesses.

As a general point, the assessor’s status and agenda probably has a big impact on the infor-

mants and the design of the assessment should be sensitive to this. As in any excellence

assessment process it is important that data should be collected through constructive

enquiry and assessors should provide supportive, useful and timely feedback.

Conclusions

Conservation success and failure can sometimes be measured in the starkest terms: extinc-

tion. For the Po’ouli, failure of the programme has meant extinction of the species, despite

significant investments in scientific resources and habitat protection. For the black-footed

ferret, previously complex conservation plans caused decades of delays, increased costs

and ultimately compromised the genetic health of the surviving animals. Although the

Total Quality Management 1175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 20:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 13: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

ferret population survived and recovery and reintroduction followed, the programme was

inefficient and absorbed unnecessary resources. In the current climate of austerity, a better

way of managing conservation needs to be found.

This paper highlights how business excellence can provide new insights for conserva-

tion programme managers and offers a new management framework to increase effective-

ness in the conservation sector. Our initial work suggests that methods for conducting

assessments can be successfully applied to field-based conservation programmes and that

the concepts of the Conservation Excellence model are accessible and can be discussed

in a meaningful way with conservation programme managers. In particular, the Conserva-

tion Excellence Model raises important and useful questions for conservation managers:

. Are the correct things being measured to understand and conserve biodiversity?

. Are programme objectives reflected in the work that is being conducted?

. Does the programme deliver meaningful conservation outcomes?

. Are all aspects of the model currently being managed within the organisation?

. Which aspects of the model are being managed ineffectively?

. If some aspects are poorly managed, what is the impact of these shortfalls?

. Does the team review its progress, analyse data and identify improvements?

. Can team members communicate ideas or give feedback on problems?

Several opportunities are presented by the Conservation Excellence Model. First, the model

can be used as a template during the design or start-up phase of a new conservation pro-

gramme, to shape the overall management system (e.g. defining objectives, identifying

success measures/feedback data, key processes/technical interventions/community engage-

ment, designing management reviews and establishing the roles of leaders and key staff).

Additionally, NGOs or government departments managing multiple programmes might

use the model as a reference for the evaluation of each programme in their portfolio to

compare and contrast the reasons for relative successes in programmes. Furthermore, the

model could be developed as a generic framework for identification and comparison of

world-class examples of conservation success to enable better knowledge exchange

across the conservation community. These latter comparisons would overcome a major

shortfall in this respect which has been the cause of despair for many conservation scientists

(Clark, 1997; Snyder & Snyder, 2000).

Conservation professionals need to understand both the biological system and the

organisational system in which they work. It is hoped that the Conservation Excellence

Model enables conservation biologists to understand the links between people, processes

and performance and how to examine these broader management topics. Perhaps future

efforts in conservation can avoid unnecessary failure by applying some of the lessons

learned from business excellence.

References

Anderson, E., Forrest, S., Clark, T., & Richardson, L. (1986). Paleobiology, biogeography, and sys-tematics of the black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes (Audubon and Bachman), 1851. GreatBasin Naturalist Memoirs, North America, 8, 11–62.

Baker, P.E. (1998). A description of the first live Po’ouli captured. The Wilson Bulletin; A QuarterlyJournal of Ornithology, 110, 307–310.

Baker, P.E. (2001). Status and distribution of the Po’ouli in the Hanawi Natural Area reservebetween December 1995 and June 1997. Studies in Avian Biology, 22, 144–150.

BFFRIT (Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Implementation Team) (2009). Black footed ferret.Retrieved March 2011, from http://www.blackfootedferret.org/

1176 S.A. Black et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 20:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 14: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

Black, S.A., & Groombridge, J.J. (2010). Use of a business excellence model to improve conserva-tion programs. Conservation Biology, 24, 1448–1458. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01562

Black, S.A., & Porter, L.J. (1996). Identification of the critical factors of TQM. Decision Sciences,27(1), 1–21.

Boersma, P.D., Kareiva, P., Fagan, W.F., Clark, J.A., & Hoekstra, J.M. (2001). How good are endan-gered species recovery plans? BioScience, 51, 643–649.

Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Almond, E.A., . . .Watson, R. (2010). Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science, 328,1164–1168.

Clark, J.A., Hoekstra, J.M., Boersma, P.D., & Kareiva, P. (2002). Improving U.S EndangeredSpecies Act recovery plans: Key findings and recommendations of the SCB Recovery PlanProject. Conservation Biology, 16, 1510–1519.

Clark, T.W. (1997). Averting extinction: Reconstructing endangered species recovery. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

CMP (Conservation Measures Partnership). (2004). Open standards for the practice of conservation(version 2.0). Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.ConservationMeasures.org

DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources) & USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service).(1999). Environmental assessment for proposed management actions to save the Po’ouli.Maui County, Hawaii.

DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources). (1999). Department of Land and NaturalResources announces its recommendations to prevent the extinction of the Po’ouli.‘Elepaio, 59, 3–5.

ECBE (European Centre for Business Excellence). (1999). The X Factor: Winning performancethrough business excellence. Leeds: British Quality Foundation.

EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management). (2003). Introducing excellence. Brussels:Author.

Ferraro, P.J., & Pattanayak, S.K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of bio-diversity conservation investments. PLOS Biology, 4, 482–488.

Fischer, J., & Lindenmayer, D.B. (2000). An assessment of the published results of animal reloca-tions. Biological Conservation, 96, 1–11.

Foster, K.R., Vechia, P., & Repacholi, M.H. (2000). Science and the precautionary principle.Science, 288, 979. doi:10.1126/science.288.5468.979

GAO. (1991). Management practices: U.S. companies improve performance through quality efforts.(GAO/NSIAD-91-190). Washington: General Accounting Office.

Goldschmidt, H., & Goldschmidt, H.O. (2001). How generic is the EFQM model? Art and quality:The EFQM model applied to the field of art. Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 6,435–439.

Groombridge, J.J., Massey, J.G., Bruch, J.C., Malcolm, T., Brosius, C.N., Okada, M.M., . . .VanderWerf, B.A. (2003). An attempt to recover the Po’ouli by translocation and an appraisalof recovery strategy for bird species of extreme rarity. Biological Conservation, 118,365–375.

Hess, K. (1995). Saving the black-footed ferret: Policy reforms and private sector incentives. CampSherman, OR: The Thoreau Institute. Retrieved November 2009, from http://www.ti.org/esa.html

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., & Courrau, J. (2006). Evaluating effective-ness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. GlandSwitzerland and Cambridge: IUCN.

IUCN. (2009). Red list of threatened species. Retrieved June 2011 from http://www.iucnredlist.org/Kapos, V., Balmford, A., Aveling, R., Bubb, P., Carey, P., Entwistle, A., . . . Manica, A. (2008).

Calibrating conservation: New tools for measuring success. Conservation Letters, 1,155–164.

Nakhai, B., & Neves, J.S. (1994). The Deming, Baldrige and European Quality Awards. QualityProgress, 27, 33–37.

Nicholls, H. (2004). The conservation business. PLoS Biology, 2, 1256–1259.Oakland, J.S., Tanner, S., & Gadd, T. (2002). Best practice in business excellence. Total Quality

Management, 13, 1125–1139.Powell, A. (2008). The race to save the world’s rarest bird: The discovery and death of the Po’ouli.

Mechanicsburg PA: Stackpole Books.

Total Quality Management 1177

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 20:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 15: Biodiversity conservation: Applying new criteria to assess excellence

Reading, R.P., & Kellert, S.R. (1993). Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of black-footedferrets (Mustela nigripes). Conservation Biology, 7, 569–580.

Seddon, J. (1998). The vanguard guide to business excellence. Buckingham: Vanguard EducationLimited.

Sila, I., & Ebrahimpour, M. (2003). Examination and comparison of the critical factors of totalquality management (TQM) across countries. International Journal of ProductionResearch, 41(2), 235–268.

Snyder, N., & Snyder, H. (2000). The California Condor. A saga of natural history and conservation.London, UK: Academic Press.

Tanner, S., & Tantawy, B. (2001). Lessons from the introduction of self assessment: What are thekey factors for success? In: Proceedings of the 6th World Congress for Total QualityManagement: Business Excellence–What is to be done? (Vol. 1, pp. 184–196). StPetersburg, Russia: Stockholm School of Economics.

Vallejo, P., Saura, R.M., Sunol, R., Kazandjian, R., Urena, V., & Mauri, J. (2006). A proposed adap-tation of the EFQM fundamental concepts of excellence to health care based on the PATHframework. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 18(5), 327–335.

VanderWerf, E.A., Malcolm, T.R., Fretz, J., Massey, J.G., Lieberman, A., Groombridge, J.J., . . .Brosius, C.N. (2003). Update on recovery efforts for the Po’ouli. ‘Elepaio, Journal of theHawaii Audubon Society, 63, 25–27.

Williams, E.S., Mills, K., Kwiatkowski, D.R., Thorne, E.T., & Boerger-Fields, A. (1994). Plague in ablack-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 30, 581–585.

Williams, E.S., Thome, E.T., Appel, M.J.G., & Belitsky, D.W. (1988). Canine distemper in black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) from Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 24, 385–398.

Wisely, S.M., Santymire, R.M., Livieri, T.M., Mueting, S.A., & Howard, J. (2008). Genotypic andphenotypic consequences of reintroduction history in the black-footed ferret (Mustelanigripes). Conservation Genetics, 9, 389–399.

Zink, K.J., & Schmidt, A. (1995). Measuring universities against the European Quality Award cri-teria. Total Quality Management, 6, 547–561.

1178 S.A. Black et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 20:

10 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014