They argued that evaluation focus must shift from “inputs” (e.g., investment dollars) and “outputs” (e.g., training) to “outcomes” produced directly because of conservation investments (e.g., species and habitats), stating that "In the field of program evaluation, one lesson is paramount: you cannot overcome poor quality with greater quantity. ” A subsequent review conducted in 2012 re-confirmed the claim that credible evaluations of common biodiversity instruments continue to be rare (Miteva, Pattanayak and Ferraro, 2012)9. Calls for more effective conservation-related development finance have also been made (e.g. Waldron et al.