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
| Results indicator | Target | Unit | Definition |
| 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
| Results indicator | Target | Unit | Definition |
| 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. |