The Nature Conservancy is a proud supporter of the 2003 World Parks Congress conserveonline.org Measuring What Matters: The Nature Conservancy’s Approach to Ecological Integrity Measurement Jeffrey Parrish

Take home messages Outcomes What did we achieve? Outputs What were the results? Process How do we go about it? Inputs What do we need? Planning Where do we want to be? Context Where are we now?Elements of Eval- uation 1.Ecological Integrity is an under-addressed, yet CRITICAL, aspect of PA management effectiveness. 2.Recommendations from WPC should emphasize EI measurement. 3.TNC, among others, offers a framework and tools for EI measurement. WCPA Assessment Framework Outcomes What did we achieve? Outputs What were the results? Process How do we go about it? Inputs What do we need? Planning Where do we want to be? Context Where are we now?Elements of Eval- uation

The Nature Conservancy The Mission of the Nature Conservancy is to conserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive global organization 50-year history of conservation results science-based partner-oriented consistent, proven framework for mission success

The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Approach Take Action Develop Strategies Set Priorities Ecoregional Assessments Measure Success

The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Approach Take Action DevelopStrategies 5-S Framework Set Priorities Ecoregional Assessments MeasureSuccess 5-S Framework

Integrated Approach to Planning and Monitoring: The 5-S Framework SystemsSystems StressesStressesSourcesSourcesStrategiesStrategies Success Measures Emphasis on Outcome Measures 1. 1.Threat Status 2. 2.Ecological Integrity

Why measure ecological integrity? For Biodiversity Parks:  Ultimate conservation goal: Improve/maintain biodiversity and requisite ecological features  Comprehensively assess threats to targets  Set quantifiable, credible objectives for conservation projects  Develop and prioritize monitoring plans  Identify and prioritize research needs  Inspire and galvanize stakeholders re the changing status of the natural world Target Viability Assessment

one day….

A history of measures in TNC ’s: $$ and has (“bucks and acres”) 1990’s: Biodiversity Health & Threat Abatement (limited implementation) 2000: Integrity Team advances new “ecological integrity/viability framework” 2002: Conservation Measures Partnership 2003: TNC Conservation Measures Group born. Organizational objectives for implementation everywere TNC works.

Assessing Ecological Integrity: 3 Categories 1. Size Abundance and/or demographics of the population/community 2. Condition Composition, structure, & biotic interactions 3. Landscape Context Landscape-scale ecological processes, adjacency and connectivity Rated as Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor What did we do before?

 No clear and consistent definition of ratings  Little science rigor  Documentation optional and sparse Excel-based “5-S Workbook”

An answer: TNC’s framework and tools for improved integrity assessment

Based on broad piloting & engagement...  Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica  Corales del Rosario, Colombia  Longleaf, Texas, USA  Santa Cruz Island, California, USA  Serra do Divisor, Brazil  Condor Bioreserve, Ecuador  Pacaya Samiria, Peru  Lake Wales Ridge, Florida, USA  Pohnopei, Micronesia  Sequoia, California, USA  Punta Curinanco, Chile  Neversink, New York, USA  Cockpit Country, Jamaica

The answer: framework and tools for improved integrity assessment Identify Key Ecological Attributes for Focal Biodiversity Identify Indicator(s) for Key Attributes Rate Indicator Status Integrate Indicator Ratings to Determine Status of: Key Ecological Attributes Specific Elements of Biodiversity Integrity of Entire Protected Area of Landscape

5. Integrate Ratings to Determine Integrity 4. Rate Indicator Status 3. Identify Indicator(s) 1. Identify Focal Biodiversity 2. Identify Key Attributes

Select a limited number of elements of biodiversity that Will be the focus of Conservation Planning and Action Will represent all biodiversity at the site (including marine, aquatic, and terrestrial, biodiversity) 5. Integrate Ratings to Determine Integrity 4. Rate Indicator Status 3. Identify Indicator(s) 1. Identify Focal Biodiversity 2. Identify Key Attributes

Punta Curiñanco Valdivian Temperate Forest Ecoregion, Chile   Olivillo evergreen broadleaf forest   Intertidal marine communities   Pudú   Guiña   Sea Otter   1st and 2nd order streams and associated riparian systems Identify focal biodiversity 2. Identify Key Attributes 4. Rate Indicator Status 5. Integrate Ratings to Determine Integrity 3. Identify Indicator(s) 1. Identify Focal Biodiversity

2. Identify Key Attributes 4. Rate Indicator Status 5. Integrate Ratings to Determine Integrity 3. Identify Indicator(s)   Factors of target ecology that define or characterize the target, limit its distribution, or determine its variation over space and time   Attributes of:   biological composition   spatial structure   biotic interactions   environmental regimes (both abiotic and biotic processes)   environmental and ecological connectivity   Size, Condition, and Landscape Context Key Ecological Attributes 1. Identify Focal Biodiversity

  Measurable entities used to assess status and trends of Key Ecological Attribute(s).   Should be:   biologically relevant (reflect target health)   socially relevant (recognized by stakeholders)   sensitive to anthropogenic stress (reflect threats)   anticipatory (early warning)   relatively easy to measure   cost-effective (max. information/unit effort) Indicators 2. Identify Key Attributes 4. Rate Indicator Status 5. Integrate Ratings to Determine Integrity 3. Identify Indicator(s) 1. Identify Focal Biodiversity

Virtually all key attributes vary naturally over time. Rate Status of Key Attributes (using indicators) If variations result from non-human factors: can be said to be “natural,”or at least “acceptable.” All conservation action is aimed at managing biodiversity’s key attributes within their acceptable range of variation. We can not consider biodiversity “conserved” unless all its key attributes are maintained within these acceptable ranges of variation. 2. Identify Key Attributes 4. Rate Indicator Status 5. Integrate Ratings to Determine Integrity 3. Identify Indicator(s) 1. Identify Focal Biodiversity

2. Identify Key Attributes 4. Rate Indicator Status 5. Integrate Ratings to Determine Integrity 3. Identify Indicator(s) 1. Identify Focal Biodiversity

Poor: Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation Fair: Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention Good: Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance Very Good: Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance 2. Identify Key Attributes 4. Rate Indicator Status 5. Integrate Ratings to Determine Integrity 3. Identify Indicator(s) 1. Identify Focal Biodiversity

When data are lacking…  Compare to reference systems or places  Use experts  Treat as iterative, treat as hypothesis  Develop criteria for at least on key attribute  Focus on “Fair” & “Good” – conserved, or not.  Use gaps to drive research priorities

Rating Biodiversity Integrity Fair One or more key attributes are rated Fair (outside its acceptable range of variation)Fair Poor One or more key attributes are rated Poor (difficult to restore)Poor Good Good Majority of key attributes are rated Good (within their acceptable ranges of variation) Very Good Very Good Majority of key attributes are rated Very Good Biodiversity Elements’ Ecological Integrity is Rated If: 2. Identify Key Attributes 4. Rate Indicator Status 5. Integrate Ratings to Determine Integrity 3. Identify Indicator(s) 1. Identify Focal Biodiversity

Rating Overall Ecological Integrity for Biodiversity Elements & for Ecological Integrity of a Park or Landscape Overall Target Viability and Project Biodiversity Health summary - Cosumnes River Reserve, California 2. Identify Key Attributes 4. Rate Indicator Status 5. Integrate Ratings to Determine Integrity 3. Identify Indicator(s) 1. Identify Focal Biodiversity ++=

Integrity measures influence priorities & are essential for adaptive management Improves threats assessmentsImproves threats assessments Prioritizes conservation investmentsPrioritizes conservation investments Bounds what activities inside and outside PA’s are acceptable: defines “sustainable”Bounds what activities inside and outside PA’s are acceptable: defines “sustainable” Informs monitoring programsInforms monitoring programs Documents success and continued challenges in Protected Area managementDocuments success and continued challenges in Protected Area management

Case studies in measuring ecological integrity Silvia Benítez, Ecuador:  Condor Bioreserve Long Yongcheng, China:  Laojunshan, Yunnan Province Nestor Windevoxhel, Guatemala:  Central America Fiona Leverington, Australia:  Queensland National Park System Gilles Seutin, Canada:  Banff and Fathom Five Reserve, Canada

Summary Ecological Integrity Measures are essential for determining ultimate outcomes in biodiversity parks Tool are available from TNC for scientifically credible and consistent measurement Measure Key Ecological Attributes & their status relative to natural/acceptable ranges of variation Biodiversity is conserved when all key attributes are within acceptable ranges Use ecological integrity results to drive investments in action, monitoring, stakeholder awareness and research

Key Themes Importance of Ecological Integrity Measurement for Protected Area Management Advances in tool development to facilitate measuring ecological outcomes Challenges of limited data and resources Experiences in measuring ecological integrity and using results for adaptive management.

Housekeeping Revised Agenda Materials Available Change of Rooms in the Afternoon … to 4-2 Question and Answer Panel