Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Conservation Action Planning Process
Target Viability/Integrity: An Iterative Process
3
What is Viability? What is “viability”?
Viability of a conservation target is the measure to which the target is……. resistant to change in its structure and composition in the face of external stresses and resilient – able to recover upon experiencing occasional severe stress Why “Ecological integrity” instead of “viability”? The term, “viability” came into usage in TNC as an outgrowth of the EO ranking process, which of course originally focused on individual species. For a species, “viability” refers to the probability that the species will persist through successful reproduction without excessive mortality. Unfortunately, natural communities and ecological systems are much fuzzier constructs -- they are naturally variable over time and space, capable of transforming into different communities or systems even under natural conditions. “Viability” is not the right word for this. Further, “viability” is not a description of current status but a prediction about future status, and the purpose of the MOS process for targets in the 5-S framework is to assess current status. The prediction of future status is supposed to be the role of the threats assessment and its own MOS process. The alternative concept of “integrity” fits the needs of the 5-S framework better for natural communities and ecological systems, and also works fine for species, too.
4
Why Assess Viability? To clearly define targets (esp. ecological systems) Science-based foundation for establishing current status of a target and setting desired future condition (goals) Helps to identify stresses to the ecological integrity of each target and understand with more precision how these threats disrupt the target Assists in developing good objectives and focused strategies Guides the design of monitoring protocol and measures of success Helps identify critical knowledge gaps about the system
5
Viability analysis has three steps
Step One. Define Key Ecological Attributes Step two. Identify indicators of status of these Attributes Step three. Rank the indicators
6
Select: KEY ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES
Step One Select: KEY ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES Aspects of the conservation target (species, community or ecological system) that clearly define or characterize the target and determine its distribution and variation over space and time. Characteristics of the target, that if eliminated or significantly altered, would result in the demise of the target or would shift it into something quite different.
7
Characteristics of Conservation Targets – assigned to categories of……
Size Area or abundance Minimum dynamic area Condition Composition (e.g., native vs. nonnative) Structure (e.g., age) Biotic Interactions (e.g., reproduction) Don’t “worry” about these categories or obsess about whether something belongs in one category or another. We just use these to prompt and organize our ideas. Landscape Context Dominant environmental regimes (e.g. fire, hydrology) Connectivity (e.g., access to habitats/resources, ability to disperse, migrate, re-colonize)
8
KEA for Mangrove Forest
Focal Target Category Key Attribute Mangrove Forest Size Habitat Size
9
Presence of Invasive species
KEA for Coral Reef Focal Target Category Key Attribute Coral Reef Condition Presence of Invasive species
10
Key Ecological Attributes are what’s important…….
Tips for Selecting Key Ecological Attributes Pick factors that are critical for long-term viability… Characteristics, if degraded, would seriously jeopardize the target’s ability to persist for 100+ years? When in doubt, pick characteristics that can be or are likely to be affected by human activities Look for a few really key ecological attributes … versus many desirable or descriptive characteristics Key Ecological Attributes are what’s important…….
11
Indicators are what you measure
Second Step: Select Indicators Indicators are measurable aspects of the Key Ecological Attribute that inform us of its status or “health” Key Attribute: Circulatory system Indicator: Blood pressure Indicators are what you measure
12
Indicator for Mangrove Forest
Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Mangrove Forest Size Habitat Size % of original forest
13
Indicator for Coral Reef
Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Coral Reef Condition Presence of Invasive species Crown of thorns on reef
14
Look for indicators that ...
Strongly relate to the status of the key ecological attribute Are efficient & affordable to measure Where you can reasonably define what constitutes “Good” Desirable indicators ... Might provide an early warning to serious stresses Might assess two or more key ecological attributes e.g. Presence of young cypress in a floodplain forest as an indicator for both hydrological regime & reproduction of dominant species
15
Step Three: “Ranking” Target Viability
Very Good: Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance Good: Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Target name Size Condition Landscape Context Key Attribute A Indicator 1 Criteria for Poor Criteria for Fair Criteria for Good Criteria for Very Good We identify targets, select key ecological attributes within the categories of size, condition, and landscape context, then select Indicators that are the Measurable entities used to assess the status of key ecological attributes ·Indicator Rating Categories are described based on Criteria that objectively define an indicator into 1 of 4 categories corresponding to Poor, Fair, Good, and Very Good viability status The guidance for defining different indicator ratings is centered on the concept of acceptable ranges of variability. Indicators in a “Good” status are within an acceptable range of variation; Some intervention is required for their maintenance Very Good is an Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance Fair status indicates a key attribute that is Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention Poor status represents a situation where Restoration increasingly difficult and the current conditions may lead to the extirpation of the target Poor: Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation Fair: Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention
16
Viability Ratings for Mangrove Forest
Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Mangrove Forest Size Habitat Size % of original forest < 25 25-50 51-75 > 75
17
Viability Ratings for Coral Reef
Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Coral Reef Condition Presence of Invasive species Crown of thorns on reef Lots Few None
18
Biodiversity Health or Landscape Functionality
Overall “Picture” of Project Viability CONDITION SIZE LANDSCAPE CONTEXT CONDITION SIZE LANDSCAPE CONTEXT When you look at the viability all your targets together – what you have is an overall estimate of the viability of your project Target A Viability Target B Viability Target C Viability Target D Viability Biodiversity Health or Landscape Functionality
19
Final Product: Target Viability Summary
20
Conducting the Assessment
An iterative process with “successive approximations” Begin with a “credible first iteration” -- your first approximation Identify really key ecological attributes for each focal target (maybe one each for size, condition and landscape context) Determine what you’ll measure for each attribute – indicator Discuss and describe what would constitute a “good” status Rate the “Current Status” for each attribute, based on informed expert opinion + available information Present your initial findings to colleagues/experts for review
21
Example - 1st Pass Fair Grassland focal target identified
Category Key Attribute Indicator Current Status Landscape Context Fair Grassland Target Fire regime Fire frequency Grassland focal target identified Fire regime = Key Attribute (Landscape Context) Fire frequency = Indicator Dense woody cover suggests not enough fire Current status deemed not viable - assigned “Fair”
22
Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired
1st Pass - table Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good grassland - Type X Landscape Context fire regime fire frequency not enough fire 1st pass results in Indicator Rating table
23
Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired
2nd Pass Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good grassland - Type X Landscape Context fire regime fire frequency not enough fire > 10 years 5-10 years Phone call to local grassland expert indicates natural fire frequency of 5-10 years.
24
Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired
3rd Pass Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good grassland - Type X Landscape Context fire regime fire frequency not enough fire > 10 years 5-10 years % grassland with 5-10 yr fire return <25% 25-50% 51-75% >75% % of the area that is burned at acceptable frequency deemed important Decision made > 50% of area = viable or key attribute = “Good” Current status is < 50% is burned at this interval
25
Flexible level of detail
Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good grassland - Type X Landscape Context fire regime fire frequency not enough fire > 10 years 5-10 years % grassland with 5-10 yr fire return <25% 25-50% 51-75% >75% 1 2 3 The project team could have settled on any one of these 3 alternatives as part of their initial CAP plan
26
Incomplete is OK! Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good grassland - Type X Size Size/extent of characteristic communities / ecosystems aerial extent in acres > 100,000 acres How important is it to fill out all ratings in this case where Current & Desired status is Very Good? Probably Not Important! Unless grassland area is threatened by large-scale habitat destruction. In this case, determining the Fair rating might guide efforts to determine how much to save
27
Accept uncertainty! General Guidance
View main purpose as capturing the current state of knowledge Don’t worry about information gaps Don’t focus on filling out all indicator ratings Can return during later planning stages to add more detail (if necessary)
28
A Reasonable First Pass Example
Target: Black-billed and Yellow-billed Parrots – Cockpit Country Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Landscape Context Availability of medium to large trees for nesting Number of large trees low density of large trees high density of large trees Condition Natural predation (e.g. by Red-tailed Hawk & Yellow Boa) Nest predation between March and July >50% of nests predated 10-50% of nests predated <10% of nests predated Size Population size Number of individuals per sample point decrease from Davis' 2001 baseline >= from Davis' 2001 baseline Population structure Fledging rates (use predator monitoring data): number of successful nests Very good Availability of large forest blocks for population refuges Average Block Size measured from satellite imagery or aerial photography (every 5 yrs) Decreasing average block size increasing average block size
29
Breakout Group Instructions: Viability Assessment
Task Select one target from your project area. Develop key ecological attributes Identify one indicator for each key ecological attribute Develop indicator rating criteria for one indicator (based on your collective expert opinion) Define “good” and the current status Qualitative ratings are OK! (e.g. “Lots of in-stream barriers”, “not enough fire” etc.)
30
Breakout Group Instructions: Viability Assessment
Very Briefly Report Back: What are the key attributes you selected? Why is each attribute “key” for the target? Which key ecological attributes did you select indicators for? What indicators were selected? Which indicator did you develop rating criteria for? How confident are you in your rating? The Excel workbook tool has built-in routines that automatically roll up one to several indicator ratings into a rating for the corresponding key ecological attribute. Key ecological attributes are rolled up into the 3 viability categories of size, condition, and landscape context. These 3 categories are then rolled up into an overall viability rating for the focal target. The last stage of roll-up generates an overall biodiversity health rating for the conservation project by rolling up the ratings for all focal targets.
32
What follows are a set of additional examples you might want to substitute in the presentation for your use. Or you might want to use an example from a previous project you have worked on.
33
Example - 1st Pass Fair American eel focal target identified
Category Key Attribute Indicator Current Status Population size & dynamics Fair Diadromous fish Size # of adult (silver) eel harvested American eel focal target identified Population size & dynamics = Key Attribute (size) Number of adult (silver) eel harvested = Indicator Few mature (silver) eels caught by fisherman during out-migration. Current status deemed not viable - assigned “Fair” This may be all that is known at Time A
34
Few mature eels caught during out-
1st Pass - table Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Diadromous Fish Size Population size & dynamics Number of adult (silver) eel harvested No eels caught during out migration Few mature eels caught during out- migration This is simply the information from the previous table captured within the Indicator Rating table format of the Excel workbook tool. 1st pass results within Indicator Rating table
35
2nd Pass Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Diadromous fish Size Population size & dynamics # of adult (silver) eel harvested No eels caught during outmigration Few mature eels caught during outmigration # of adult (silver) eels harvested/night < 1,000 lbs/night >1,000 lbs/night Conversation with local eel expert indicates silver eel harvest used cover the bottom of weirs with eels, approx 1,000 lbs a night.
36
3rd Pass % of fish biomass deemed to be important
Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Diadromous fish Size Population size & dynamics # of adult (silver) eel harvested No eels caught during out- migration Few mature eels caught during out-migration # of adult (silver) eels harvested/night < 1,000 lbs/night >1,000 lbs/night % fish biomass < 25% 25 – 35% 35 – 50% > 50% % of fish biomass deemed to be important Decision made > 35% biomass = viable KEA = “Good”
37
Flexible level of detail
1 2 3 >1,000 lbs/night < 1,000 lbs/night # of adult (silver) eels harvested/night Population size & dynamics Size Diadromous fish > 50% 35 – 50% 25 – 35% < 25% % fish biomass Few mature eels caught during out-migration No eels caught during out-migration # of adult (silver) eel harvested Very Good Good Fair Poor Indicator Key Attribute Category Focal Target Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired The project team could have settled on any one of these 3 alternatives as part of their initial CAP plan
38
From Viability assessment in Indonesian village
Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Catches from the Sea Population size Fish catch per day X Size Catches from the Sea identified as a focal target for fish caught for local consumption and sale Key attribute & indicator selected Fisherman observe that catch is much less than they remember in recent times Current status considered not viable (Fair)
39
From Viability assessment in Indonesian village
Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Catches from the Sea Size Population size fish catch per day catch = 0 strings of fish strings of fish > 100 strings of fish Interviews indicate current harvest < 30 strings of fish Ten years ago, harvest yielded up to 200 strings of fish > 100 considered Very Good considered Good
40
Size/Minimum Dynamic Area
This slide describes how to think about the size attribute as it relates to a large scale matrix forest target. This relates to a paper by Mark Anderson on Minimum Viable Population. (available in the CAP tool kit) The x/y axis is size in acres. The lines and arrows show the amount of acres likely to be affected by naturally reoccurring disturbances and the amount of acres required for one breeding female of some of the different characteristic species. The concept is to consider a forest block viable if it able to accommodate disturbances and has enough space for a viable populations of characteristic species. Acres (000’s)
41
Final Product: Target Viability Summary
42
Viability Assessment: Fundamentals
Key Ecological Attributes Critical component of target’s life history, physical or biological processes, composition, structure Clearly define target Limit its distribution Determine its natural variation over space and time On a time scale of years Viability Indicators Measurable entities used to assess the status of Key Ecological Attribute(s). Indicator Rating Categories Criteria to enable objective status assessments For the past several years, a group of TNC scientists led by David Braun, Jeffrey Parrish, and Bob Unnasch worked with partner scientists to develop a more rigorous means of assessing the viability of conservation targets. Initially focused on viability of ecological system targets, they came up with an assessment process that applies to any category of conservation target. The new assessment method includes 3 additions to the old approach ·Key Ecological Attributes o Critical component of target’s life history, physical or biological processes, composition, structure ·Viability Indicators o Measurable entities used to assess the status of key ecological attributes ·Indicator Rating Categories o Criteria that objectively define an indicator into 1 of 4 categories corresponding to Poor, Fair, Good, and Very Good viability status
Similar presentations
