multi-area conservation strategies
DESCRIPTION
Multi-Area Conservation Strategies. Purposes. Multi-area conservation strategies should explicitly serve one or more of the following purposes: To abate threats at multiple conservation areas To enhance the viability of conservation targets at multiple conservation areas - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Multi-Area Conservation
Strategies
Purposes
Multi-area conservation strategies should explicitly serve one or more of the following purposes:
To abate threats at multiple conservation areasTo enhance the viability of conservation targets at multiple conservation areasTo build capacity or generate demonstrable leverage towards the successful application of some other conservation strategy
The multiple conservation areas may be within or across operating units, political jurisdictions, large-scale project areas, ecoregions, or other relevant aggregations
Types of Multi-Area Strategies
Establishing Systems of Conservation Areas
Securing Public Funds for Conservation
Securing Tax or Market-Based Incentives for Conservation
Developing Conservation Institutions
Replicating Successful Strategies Across Multiple Areas
Improving Public Policies to Abate Threats
Systems of Conservation AreasPublic or private officially designated systems of conservation areasDegree of assured protection may vary greatly -- from strictly voluntary to high levels of statutory protectionTNC role may range from providing information to decision-makers to active development of conservation area systemsExamples:
Wilderness Act (no major TNC involvement)State Nature Preserve SystemsState registry programs -- voluntary landowner agreementsProviding ecoregional or site-specific information to USFS for designation of natural areas or for 10-year plans Westvaco designation of natural areas on company lands
Public PoliciesMany public policies to abate threats are regulatory in nature, but can be an important toolExamples
Endangered Species ActNEPA and Clean Water Act (no major TNC involvement)
State Heritage inventory programs were one of the “original” multi-area strategies, beyond their basic inventory function, by connecting to NEPA
California NCCP (conservation planning for coastal sage scrub)State and federal fire management policies
Statewide, regional or county-level growth management policies TNC role may range from providing information to decision-makers to active engagement -- but is always non-confrontational and solution-oriented
Public Funds for ConservationIncludes both direct public funds and tax incentivesExamples
LWCF
Parks in Peril
State & local bond initiatives and other dedicated funding sources
State tax credits for easement donations
50% capital gains exclusion on conservation sales
Debt-for-nature swaps & conservation trust funds
Carbon mitigation funds
1 cent water tax to protect source of water/watershed
Transportation mitigation funds
Farm Bill
Conservation Institutions Has been a cornerstone strategy with partners internationally, as well as internally for TNC in the United StatesInstitutions may be focused country-wide, statewide, regionally, or on one or more functional landscapesExamples
Development of TNC state programs in the late 1970s and 1980s were one of the “original” multi-area strategiesDevelopment of new in-country organizations Australia Conservation Fellows: Eight TNC veterans have provided expertise, experience & technical assistance to four leading conservation organizations on targeted assignmentsBroad or deep “capacity-building” support to country and regional NGOs
e.g. Pronatura Noreste; Colorado Cattleman’s Land Trust
Replicating Successful Strategies
Developing innovative strategies at action sites and replicating those that prove successful -- e.g.
Bargain sales & govt. co-op land purchases -- from the early 1970sDemonstration of successful fire management practicesConservation buyersLocally funded PDR programs (purchase of development rights)Application of HCPs (Habitat Conservation Plans) and safe-harbor agreementsWeed co-ops with local ranchers & agenciesWorking with Corps of Engineers on dam operationsApplications of many varied federal programs -- e.g. fencing cattle from riparian areas & providing alternative water sources
Need to consider more systematic approach for “diffusion of innovations”
Diffusion of InnovationsSuccessful diffusion of an innovation depends upon: Relative advantage to which the innovation is
perceived as better than the idea it supercedes Compatibility with the existing values, past
experiences and needs of the potential adopters Simplicity -- the degree to which the innovation is
not difficult to understand and use Trialability -- the degree to which the innovation
may be experimented with on a limited basis Observability -- the degree to which the innovation
is visible to others
Diffusion of Innovations
Diffusion is fundamentally a social processMost people depend upon a subjective evaluation of an innovation that is conveyed to them by people like themselves (interpersonal networks with near peers)
The greater the members are connected by interpersonal networks, the better the diffusion
Opinion leaders who influence others informally in a desired way with relative frequency
Weak ties can be more important than strong ties
From “Diffusion of Innovations”, 4th edition, by Everett Rogers
Other Multi-Area StrategiesThe preceding five categories capture the largest number of multi-area strategies. Other potential fruitful arenas
Market-based incentives for conservationCertification of forest products or sustainable forestry practicesEngagement with the forest industry to develop sustainable forestry standardsValue-added premiums for conservation-based production, such as Conservation Beef
Conservation “scorecards”Conservation organizations use varied scorecards (e.g. 10 most endangered parks, rivers, etc…; Chesapeake Bay Fdtn’s annual “State of the Bay”) to point attention to areas or issues
Multi-Area Strategies to Abate Threats
Conditions Required…Abating a threat (or enhancing viability) requires that strategic action be taken at a scale beyond individual sitesThe threat is ranked “High” or “Very High” across multiple occurrences of a targetThe threat manifests itself in a similar way across multiple occurrences of a common target
Or…Capacity for strategic action across multiple areas (e.g. $$) can be better developed at a larger scale than individual sites (e.g. state/province/national)
Formulating Multi-Area Strategies to Abate Threats
The Same as Single-Area Strategies...Clearly link the source to the stress to the system & a key ecological attribute... in order to show real impact on a target’s viability
Determine the desired outcome from abating the threat - the objective that we seek
Objective must be related back to a key ecological attribute benchmark for “Good”
Develop compelling strategic actions & action steps to achieve the objective
Assess Benefits/Feasibility/Cost to compare the proposed strategy to others
Secure lead individual to assume responsibility for implementing the strategy
Trade-Offs
There is a probable trade-off to consider between single-area strategies and multi-area strategies: conservation impact vs. scope
Highly focused strategies at functional landscapes may be more likely to achieve tangible, enduring results (impact) -- but at a fewer number of conservation areas (scope)
Strategies that seek to influence conservation at multiple areas have a broader reach (scope) -- but not produce as much certainty of tangible, enduring results (impact)
IMPACT: Tangible Enduring Results -- Threat Abatement & Enhanced Health of Targets
SCOPE: Number of Areas Impacted
High
High
Tangible, Enduring Results vs. Working at Scale
Low
Direct TNC Action at 20 Landscapes
Influencing Partners at 200 Sites
Is there a “sweet spot” on the curve?
AB
C
Not “Either-Or”...Single-area & multi-area strategies are not mutually exclusiveFocused action at a small number of landscapes will achieve enormous & enduring portfolio conservation
In a typical U.S. ecoregion, an average of 25 functional landscapes captures:
All coarse-scale ecological systems, across an array of environmental gradientsTwo-thirds of the conservation targets in each ecoregion, on the averageOver half of all target occurrences, on the average
Direct action at functional landscapes also provides benefits in relation to multi-area strategies
A testing and proving ground for new strategiesHigh credibility for TNC with agencies, partners & donors
Locus of ActionThe best locus of action will differ for each multi-area strategyThe locus for a given strategy might be:
Large-scale conservation program area, with multiple sitesState/province -- within a state/province or statewideRegional -- networks of conservation areas with similar targets, threats, institutions, etc.National -- within a country or country-wideInstitutional -- focused within a targeted agency or organization
Ecoregions are an ideal locus for setting priorities; however, for most multi-area strategies ecoregions are not an ideal locus for taking action“Structure follows strategy” -- the development of the strategy should guide the locus for action and implementation structure, not vice-versa
Evaluating StrategiesBoth single-area and multi-area strategies can be evaluated by the same broad conceptual framework: Benefits, Feasibility & Cost
Benefits include impact, scope, duration & leverage, plus TNC’s value added:
ImpactDegree of threat abatement secured, and the criticality of threatsDegree of enhanced viability for conservation targets
Scope: number of conservation targets and/or areas impactedDuration: probable duration of the impacts (i.e. potential for enduring results)Leverage: in some cases, engagement in a particular strategy may generate leverage for other conservation strategies (e.g. development of political support)TNC Value Added: What degree of contribution and improvement to the benefits is TNC likely to make with its proposed engagement ?
Evaluating Strategies (continued)
Feasibility of successful implementation is determined byAvailability of talented staff to lead the strategyThe ability to motivate & engage key constituencies or partnersInherent complexity of the undertakingAbility to secure funds
Costs Estimated cost of proposed Conservancy engagement Consider the source of funding
Discretionary funds in handNew dollars that could go to several different purposes
New dollars that can only go to one purpose
The overall evaluation of engagement in a strategy is a function of the Benefits, Feasibility and Costs
Evaluating StrategiesBenefits = Very High
Very High High Medium Low
Very High Good Fair Fair PoorHigh Very Good Good Fair FairMedium Very Good Very Good Good FairLow Very Good Very Good Very Good Good
<------------------ Feasibility ------------------>
< C
ost
>
Benefits = High
Very High High Medium Low
Very High Fair Fair Poor PoorHigh Good Fair Fair PoorMedium Very Good Good Fair FairLow Very Good Very Good Good Fair
<------------------ Feasibility ------------------>
< C
ost
>
Benefits = Medium
Very High High Medium Low
Very High Fair Poor Poor PoorHigh Fair Fair Poor PoorMedium Good Fair Fair PoorLow Very Good Good Fair Fair
<------------------ Feasibility ------------------>
< C
ost >
Benefits = Low
Very High High Medium Low
Very High Poor Poor Poor PoorHigh Fair Poor Poor PoorMedium Fair Fair Poor PoorLow Good Fair Fair Poor
<------------------ Feasibility ------------------><
Cos
t >
The overall “Strategy Opportunity” Rank is a function of Benefits, Feasibility & Costs
Some Issues
Who takes responsibility for strategies that require leadership, or even action, beyond the project area?TNC (and probably many other organizations) lack a process for even evaluating the many multi-area strategies that might flow up from project teams, let alone a process for “handing off” responsibilityIs the multi-area strategy in lieu of… or in addition to… single area (e.g invasives)
What works best at what scaleWhat is the value added -- effective/efficient