The ability to measure and demonstrate the impact of conservation interventions is critical for management, accountability, and lesson-learning, yet most organizations struggle to implement appropriate, effective monitoring and evaluation. This is particularly so for community-based projects and livelihoods-focused interventions that require the use of social science methods unfamiliar to most conservation biologists. Quantitative surveys and indicator-based approaches are commonly used but are limited in their utility, and ignore a wealth of potentially valuable qualitative and anecdotal information on impact and change. Here we describe a method for standardizing the collection and analysis of stories of change that originated in, and is commonly employed by, the development sector. Trials of the use of the Most Significant Change method in a range of Fauna & Flora International's partnership projects revealed not only its value as a monitoring tool alongside more familiar surveys and quantitative data collection but also as a participatory management tool that improved staff capacity and project adaptive management and responsiveness. Although initially time-consuming to establish and implement, it has been embraced by these projects as a beneficial addition to monitoring and evaluation. The consequent interest it has raised amongst other conservation practitioners suggests that it warrants further testing and application. Conservationists would do well to learn from the tools and experiences of the development sector when exploring the social impacts of conservation projects.

Biodiversity conservation is increasingly expected to reduce poverty where the two coincide. Yet conservation and poverty are multifaceted concepts and the linkages between them are complex and variable; whether and how conservation contributes to poverty reduction in practice will depend on the specific nature of those linkages. To unravel this complexity we explored the portfolio of Fauna & Flora International, an international conservation organization operating in some of the poorest countries and regions. We examined reports from 88 projects and categorized the rationales, approaches and outcomes of a sample of 34 livelihoods-focused projects. Rationales varied among and within projects and included apparent 'win-win' scenarios (reducing poverty improves conservation outcomes), trade-offs (conservation action hurts the poor or poverty reduction damages biodiversity), and situations where livelihoods interventions were not directly linked to conservation gains. Projects revealed a balance of direct (income, food security, health) and indirect (capacity building, reduced vulnerability, governance, empowerment) livelihood goals. Overall, empowerment, security and social network development were more significant short-term outcomes than income generation. Social responsibility was widely embedded but does not necessarily translate into a positive impact on poverty. Conservation organizations have the potential to improve the lives of the poor in many places where they operate, and arguably a duty to ensure that conservation does not make poor people worse off. Yet it is important to be clear about the reasons for engaging and the scope and scale of likely outcomes.

Support for an integrated system for management of natural resources that promotes equitable conservation and sustainable use was renewed recently by an influential international gathering. The Ecosystem Approach was endorsed by the 5th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2000 as the primary framework for action under the CBD. Unfortunately it has been unclear what this means in practical terms, so there was strong support for a new decision to facilitate implementation of the Approach at the 7th COP this February. Besides renewing the appeal for the application of the Ecosystem Approach, this decision calls for analysis of existing tools and techniques and development of new ones to facilitate implementation, and provides practical recommendations on the kind of information parties require to achieve this. Such an integrated approach to natural resource management is considered essential for the significant reduction of the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010: the target set at the World Summit on Sustainable Development.