Measuring Conservation Outcomes for Biodiversity: Elizabeth T. Kennedy 22 January 2004 Key biodiversity areas concept development meeting An overview on monitoring the status of biodiversity and the Outcome Monitoring Program at Conservation International

Locally led process with global standards MAP

Why does the biodiversity conservation community need Outcome Monitoring? Assess how we’re doing Detect and act on threats Inform our strategy development over time Anticipate monitoring or ‘reporting’ needs with delivery of quantifiable, repeatable measures that all can embrace Ability to report progress on Outcomes will facilitate generation of future funds for biodiversity conservation Establish a sound foundation to build in other monitoring needs

Why does the biodiversity conservation community need Outcome Monitoring? Assess how we’re doing –project managers –national NGOs –CBCs –Governments –international organisations –global community Detect and act on threats –species, sites, corridors –national policy –global trendslocalglobal

State Biophysical System Pressure Social System Response Management System State-Pressure-Response Framework

Response: Pass Ecotourism Initiative to provide an alternative livelihood for the hunters State: Species listed as CR and population numbers declining Time An example of linking pressure- state-response indicators Pressure: Local communities hunting due to lack of opportunities for other income

A. State Indicators = Indicators to help determine the condition of biodiversity B. Pressure and Response Indicators = Indicators to help determine whether specific actions are working as planned. C. Site / context specific indicators Monitoring Categories

State Indicators 1.Percent change in number of threatened species in each IUCN Red List category, number of species downlisted, and number of species that have gone extinct 2.Percent improvement towards achieving downlisting of each threatened species, concentrating on rates of decline, starting with Critically Endangered species Extinctions Avoided

a.Target definition status (Response) b.Research on threatened species (Response) c.Legislative protection of species (Response) d.Exploitation of species (Pressure) Extinctions Avoided Pressure and Response Indicators

3.Percent and number of all key biodiversity areas (e.g., IBA, IPA, etc.)that are protected with (a) legal recognition or binding contractual agreements and (b) biodiversity conservation as an official goal Areas Protected 4.Percent original habitat cover at key biodiversity areas State Indicators

Pressure and Response Indicators a.Target definition progress (Response) b.Species focus in management objectives (Response) c.Permitted uses of protected areas (Response) d.Implementation of management [personnel, boundary demarcation, research stations, local benefits] (Response) Areas Protected

State Indicators 5.Change in fragmentation statistics 6.Percent suitable habitat cover for corridor-level species Corridors Created

Supplementary Indicators a. Target definition progress (Response) b. Infrastructure development (Pressure) c. National conservation legislation (Response) d. Invasive species presence (Pressure) e. Incentives for biodiversity friendly land use (Response) Corridors Created

Depth and Breadth Two tiers of monitoring 0x little lots detail sites all sitesselected sites

Remote and on the Ground Breadth Depth Pattern Process

~ 1990 ~ 2000 Estimation

Outcome Monitoring provides a broad summary of critical thresholds for : Globally threatened species High biodiversity value sites Landscape / seascape dynamics Allows interpretation of patterns at a species, site, corridor, hotspot, country or regional scale