CMS i is a software supported approach to the planning and management of conservation sites and projects. In its traditional guise, CMS i is used primarily as a tool for managing protected areas, but in essence CMS i is a rational, logical and structured approach to management planning and implementation that is subject independent.
Importantly, the software enables the integration of planning, delivery, monitoring and reporting and as such eliminates the disconnect that is so often apparent between strategic objectives and their realisation on the ground. It is developed and promoted by the CMS Consortium http://cmsconsortium.org/ a not for profit organisation managed by UK and Dutch government and non-government conservation organisations.
The CMS logic is being promoted for the development of nectar point network action plans. Essentially, and action plan is a diary in which work (a project) is scheduled for a particular day or period. When the start date arrives, the work is either done or skipped. In the first case the results of the work are entered for that date. In the second case the reasons why the work was not done are recorded for that date.
After the work is done a monitoring project is scheduled. This is in order to record the outcome of the work (a performance indicator) in relation to the target condition (objective) set for the desirable state of the feature being managed.
A paper diary or a collection of ‘To Do’ lists can be used to record a simple sequence of management and monitoring. However, an electronic diary is essential for a situation where several features on more than one site are being managed. This is because each site requires a diary and each day may have to support more than one entry. Furthermore, a flexible hypertext function is required so that links can be made from each management task to its monitoring project and from projects to photographs, maps and support documents, such as job descriptions.
Click here for further information
CMSi is a Welsh success story that started some twenty years ago when site managers in Wales realised that the achievement of successful conservation outcomes was being hampered by:
Strategic objectives that too frequently changed with changing management regimes
The highest level objectives should (largely) survive and transcend management arrangements and other transitory factors
A disconnect between the setting of strategic objectives and the work being done on the ground
This is as much about making sure that unnecessary work is not done as much as it is about making sure the critical work is done. Interestingly, when the CMSi approach was adopted it was found that the work load on some sites actually reduced (as poorly targeted actions were identified and stopped) allowing resources to be transferred to those activities that better supported site objectives.
Difficulties in reporting against outputs and outcomes – single site/project
This often betrayed a lack of rigour in the planning process whereby the critical ‘features’ of the site/project were not clearly identified (i.e. the elements that you are trying to conserve or enhance) leading to the wrong parameters being selected for monitoring. This often being compounded by focussing reporting on outputs (what did I do?) rather than outcomes (what did my actions achieve?).
Difficulties in reporting against outputs and outcomes – aggregation of multiple sites/projects
In the absence of a common framework (and even where individual sites/projects had appropriate management and monitoring) then it often proved impossible to aggregate data from multiple sites so as to be able to understand success and failure at the strategic or national level.
Poor information sharing and lost knowledge
Work on the ground was being managed and recorded using different (or no) information management systems with the resulting limitations on data exchange meaning that information on successful techniques) was not readily available to those who need it. Similarly, valuable site and project information was typically accumulated by individuals and did not survive their succession.
Realising that the above might all be addressed through the development of an integrated planning, management and monitoring framework, work was begun on the first version of a system that has now developed into CMS i. CMS i is now used to manage thousands of sites by Natural Resources Wales (deriving from use within the Countryside Council for Wales), Natural England, the National Trust, Scottish Wildlife Trust, Staatsbosbeheer (Dutch state organisation for forestry and conservation), Natuurmonumenten (Dutch equivalent of the National Trust) and several other organisations around the world.