From weak to strong project result
Below is an example of a weak project result and an example of how it could be improved. Both examples include comments from our project advisors in italics.
Weak project result
|Participatory approaches used to increase capacity to improve the quality and resilience to climate change of NSR ecosystems outside of immediate project areas by 2035.||All||North Sea Region||Project activities (including up-scaling toolbox) have significantly enhanced the ability of relevant stakeholders outside of the project to reduce negative impact, repair past damage and improve ecosystem quality.|
1. Benefit is not adequately identified.
|All is not a target – all targets must contain a numerical value. All what?||North Sea Region is not a unit of measurement – think percentage increase, percentage decrease, etc.||The key here is outside of the project - the definition should indicate how/ why the methodology can be used to reach the result indicator.|
Strong project result
|Increased return on public investment by adopting participatory/ co-governance approaches to management of NSR ecosystems.||20||Percentage increase||Demonstrate Cost Benefit Analysis for the % increase in returns for every euro equivalent of public funding on implementing environmental policy. Measure increase in value of ecosystem services, unlock cross sector investment and deliver direct savings.|
|Demonstrates specifically what the benefit is by adopting participatory/ co-governance approaches.||Specific numerical value – the target shows to what degree the project is aiming at delivering change. It is quantifying the benefit.||Gives the basis/ unit for how the benefit will be measured.||Defines the methodology behind the result indicator. Tells us what the result indicator actually means.|