Tyrannies of effective monitoring and evaluation

Abstract

Learning by doing is an integral part of the human condition. Perhaps starting in childhood as an innate response to environmental conditions, trial and error learning is increasingly supplemented by other modes of learning as the individual (or institution) matures. Supplementation can become replacement if societal or institutional conventional thinking predominates over reflection when responding to changing circumstances. There are efficiencies in reacting to change in this way, but not necessarily increased efficacy, especially where uncertainty is high and causality is poorly understood. High uncertainty and poorly understood causality have underpinned and driven the adoption of an adaptive management approach to natural resource management, climate change and environmental management generally, and any area where management of people is involved. Adaptive management depends on having time to reflect on the results of actions, supported by monitoring and evaluation of change in condition. However, in environmental management this central requirement appears to be mis-focused, given low priority and poorly executed. The result is that learning is ad hoc and capricious, relying on chance or the astuteness of individual managers, rather than being a process of accumulating knowledge from experience that is institutionally entrenched as part of doing business. Effective use of monitoring and evaluation to underpin adaptive management is impeded by the lingering oppression of normative responses, a legacy of the past. We identify seven of these that need to be addressed if truly learning institutions are to emerge and an adaptive approach to environmental management is to be achieved.

Notes

1. PSR – Pressure-State-Response; DPSIR – Drivers-Pressures-States-Impacts-Responses.

2. SMART: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound.