The Conservation Impact of the American Society of Primatologists' Conservation Small Grant Program

Abstract

Given the dire condition of existing biodiversity and the limited availability of funding to protect it, conservation prac- titioners and scholars are increasingly recognizing the need to monitor and evaluate conservation investments. In line with this trend, our objective was to assess the conservation impact of the American Society of Primatologists' (ASP) Conservation Small Grant Program. Since 1989, the ASP has provided funding in support of research- and education-based projects aimed at effecting primate conservation. To date, 185 projects on 74 primate species have been supported in 41 countries. To accomplish our objec- tive, we developed and administered a voluntary survey to former grant recipients from the years of 1997-2012 to assess whether ASP funded projects resulted in further research, dissemination of results, capacity building and other conservation outcomes. We also assessed grant recipients' perceptions regarding factors that impeded conservation outcomes and factors that would have facilitated greater success. Of the 106 people we contacted, 42 responded, giving a 39.6% response rate. Seventy-nine percent of respondents reported at least one conservation outcome. The two most frequently reported outcomes were: (1) research presence generates greater local awareness/interest in target species and/or its habitat, and (2) increased scientific understanding of target species. None of the respondents reported outcomes directly related to the status of the target primate species. Capacity build- ing through the training and employment of students, local people, and protected area staff was reported by 81% of respondents. Almost all of the respondents (93%) disseminated their project results in some fashion (e.g., scholarly journals, newspapers, local radio and TV, conference presentations, and presentations to local schools and communities). The top five factors impeding con - servation outcomes were: (1) limited funding, (2) limited time, (3) illegal resource extraction, (4) changes in local government, and (5) lack of support from local people. The top three suggestions for ensuring more successful outcomes were: (1) develop partnerships with local governments and NGOs, (2) establish a long-term research presence, and (3) secure follow-up funding. Overall, the results highlight the importance of garnering local support for primate conservation projects, sustaining a long-term research presence at field sites, clearly defining terms used in monitoring and evaluation, building evaluation into the design of primate conservation projects, and encouraging and enabling researchers to share both successes and failures.