Conservation Measures Partnership

Conservation Measures Partnership
Name	Conservation Measures Partnership
Formation	2003
Type	Non-profit consortium
Headquarters	United States
Region served	Global

Conservation Measures Partnership is an international consortium of conservation organizations focused on improving the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation through shared standards, tools, training, and evaluation. The partnership develops and promulgates practice-oriented frameworks used by non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental bodies, foundations, and academic institutions to plan, monitor, and learn from conservation actions. CMP's work connects practitioners involved with protected areas, species recovery, landscape-scale projects, and policy advocacy.

Overview

CMP convenes conservation practitioners from organizations such as World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, BirdLife International, IUCN, and Conservation International to co-develop common approaches to conservation management, monitoring, and adaptive learning. Its flagship product, the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, synthesizes methods used by BirdLife International’s Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas programs, The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Action Planning, and monitoring approaches deployed by WWF and IUCN-linked initiatives. CMP operates at the intersection of practice, philanthropy, and research, engaging funders like the MacArthur Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and academic partners such as University of Cambridge and University of Oxford.

History

CMP was formed in 2003 when several major conservation organizations and funders sought to harmonize methods for planning and measuring conservation outcomes after experiences from projects supported by the Ford Foundation and Packard Foundation. Early collaborative efforts built on programmatic lessons from The Nature Conservancy’s conservation planning in the United States and WWF’s adaptive management work in Latin America and Africa. Over time CMP consolidated practices into the Open Standards, incorporating feedback from field programs in places like the Amazon Rainforest, Kruger National Park, and the Coral Triangle. CMP has periodically revised its guidance to reflect advances promoted by initiatives associated with Convention on Biological Diversity processes and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora discussions.

Organizational Structure and Membership

CMP is governed by a steering group composed of representatives from major member organizations and supporting philanthropic institutions, modeled on consortiums like Coalition for Rainforest Nations and Alliance for Zero Extinction. Member and associated organizations have included World Resources Institute, Fauna & Flora International, Rare (organization), Wildlife Conservation Society, and specialized programs such as BirdLife International’s regional partners. CMP’s Secretariat coordinates working groups on standards development, training, and software tools akin to platforms developed by Global Environment Facility-backed projects and national parks networks like Kenya Wildlife Service and South African National Parks. CMP also engages independent consultants, evaluation specialists from institutions like IUCN commissions, and researchers from universities including Stanford University and Yale University.

Standards and Frameworks (e.g., Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation)

CMP’s primary contribution is the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, a structured framework for setting goals, assessing threats, designing strategies, and monitoring results. The Open Standards integrate concepts from Logical Framework approach-derived planning used by conservation NGOs, theory of change models promoted in philanthropic circles like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s evaluation practices, and adaptive management literature from researchers associated with University of Michigan and Cornell University. CMP also supports standards-aligned tools such as Miradi and the Conservation Measures Partnership’s MiradiShare, which echo software approaches developed for the World Bank’s project monitoring. Training curricula and certification efforts draw parallels with capacity-building programs at institutions like the Smithsonian Institution and the Natural History Museum, London.

Major Projects and Initiatives

CMP has been involved in initiatives to mainstream evidence-based conservation decision-making across landscapes and seascapes, supporting projects in regions including the Amazon Rainforest, Southeast Asia, the Mediterranean Basin, and the Caribbean. CMP-supported pilots have guided marine protected area planning in the Coral Triangle and species recovery planning for taxa prioritized by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. It has influenced monitoring components of donor-funded programs such as those by the Global Environment Facility and the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. CMP’s training workshops and online learning platforms mirror capacity efforts by organizations like Conservation International and the United Nations Environment Programme.

Partnerships and Collaborations

CMP collaborates with a wide array of partners, including international NGOs (WWF, The Nature Conservancy), donor organizations (MacArthur Foundation, Ford Foundation), multilateral agencies (UNEP, UNDP), and academic centers (Yale School of the Environment, University of Cambridge). It engages networks such as the IUCN Specialist Groups and regional conservation alliances like the Panthera-linked carnivore programs and the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund’s regional implementation teams. CMP’s model resembles partnership arrangements seen in initiatives like the Global Mangrove Alliance and collaborates on data standards with efforts from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility and monitoring platforms aligned with the Convention on Biological Diversity’s reporting mechanisms.

Impact and Criticisms

Advocates credit CMP with improving consistency in conservation planning and enabling comparative evaluation across projects funded by organizations like the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation. Users report enhanced clarity in goal-setting and better articulation of threats and indicators in site-based plans used by national parks and community-conserved areas. Critics argue the Open Standards can be bureaucratic and resource-intensive for small local NGOs and community groups, echoing debates similar to criticisms of top-down approaches discussed in analyses from Oxfam and development scholars at Harvard University. Others note challenges in translating standardized frameworks into policy impact within governmental decision processes such as those under the Convention on Biological Diversity and national ministries.

Category:Conservation organizations