Original source · versioned page text
2020-09-14 GC Agenda - Item 7 - Attachment 2 - Independent Scientific Review of Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
This document appears to be plans or drawings. Its page text below holds only the words printed on the drawings, without the drawings themselves, so it may be jumbled or hard to follow. To see the plans as drawn, choose Original above or download the file (both need you to log in).
Log in to see the plans as drawn Document Current terminology Alternative Explanation
(# of items) terminology
Project Plan Project goal (1) Project goal An overarching project goal is
appropriate.
Objectives (5) Project phases or These are operational elements
elements or phases of the project
Deliverables (21) Deliverables or Outputs of the project activities.
outputs
Measurable Measures These are not outcome measures,
outcomes (27) but output measures.
MER Plan Targets (3) Targets The targets are clear and helpful.
They could also be considered
outcomes.
Goals (11)4 Objectives Steps on the way to the targets /
outcomes, achieved in the life of
the project
Objectives (19)5 Performance More detail on measures and
measures assessment.
Indicators Indicators
Recommendation 2. Incorporate recommendations for longer term monitoring as part of the final project
report.
Legacy is the extent to which project impacts will continue over time after funding ceases (Roberts et al.,
2018). The Project Plan and MER Plan don’t explicitly address legacy but there is evidence that legacy has
been considered in the overall project design. Monitoring of project legacy (impacts) should be addressed
by incorporating recommendations for ongoing monitoring as part of the final project report, when the
performance of the current project and its MER are known and future resources and capability understood.
Recommendation 3. Consider further development of socio-economic monitoring and assessment
methods if desired.
Biophysical and ecological monitoring and assessment methods are well established and clearly described.
The monitoring and assessment methods provided for the socio-economic target are fairly generic.
Evaluation of qualitative socio-economic data is not described, and many of the socio-economic indicators
have no clear benchmarks (e.g. knowledge, skills and educational objectives). Measures such as the number
of community events, number of attendees, and number of groups engaged are suitable output measures,
but don’t assess community awareness, use and satisfaction, for example.
The degree of effort expended on socio-economic monitoring and assessment should reflect the priority
that Noosa Council and TNC place on the socio-economic outcomes of the project, and what can be learnt
from that. If community engagement and outcomes are considered important then I recommend the
4
11 goals are listed in Annex 1 of the MER (pg. . .69-73) but only 10 goals are shown in figure 6 of the Project Plan
(pg.32)
5
19 objectives are listed in Annex 1 of the MER (pg. 69-73) but only 13 are shown in Annex 2 (pg.74) and 15 are shown
in figure 6 of the Project Plan (pg. 32)
9
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.