Shared Conservation Priorities Assessment:

Phase 1 Briefing

June 24, 2012

Lyndsey Girod, U. of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignCourtney Flint, Ph.D. U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Phase 1 Assessment Methods

30 interviews conducted March – June Steering Committee (17/28)Technical Core Team (10/10)LCC Staff (3/3)14 in person/16 by phone

Interviews transcribed and themes analyzed using NVivo 9 qualitative analysis software

Findings: Role of the LCC

Perspectives on what the LCC should NOT do: Step on jurisdictional toes or be redundant in their efforts (30%)Be a pass-through mechanism or just another RFP process (13%)Implementation on the ground (13%)Science that doesn’t directly link to management (10%)Dictate priorities top-down (10%)Cultural resources (3%)

Some of these suggestions may conflict with perspectives about what the LCC should do.

Findings: Role of the LCCCommunication and Coordination Role (73%)

Communication of regional effortsNewsletter

Coordinate existing effortsPlanning document revisions (e.g. SWAPs)Climate change & AdaptationMonitoringCreate platform to simplify money transfers between partners

Identify and articulate shared priorities for the regionEncourage landscape and ecosystem level thinking

Including human dimensionsHost discussion forums about regional topicsNew trans-boundary planning and implementationEducation and Outreach

Findings: Role of the LCCScience (43%)

Identify science gaps and needs for the regionLink science to managementFocused research on vulnerable speciesTranslate science into policyAssisting the region with vulnerability assessments

Information and Data (30%)Provide a mechanism for information and data sharing

Website, sharepoint, clearinghouseDecision-support tool development

Summary: Role of the LCC

Perspectives on what the LCC SHOULD do can be categorized into three types of roles:

Communication and Coordination (73%)Science (43%)Information and Data (30%)

Clear consensus or direction will help when synthesizing shared conservation priorities in the next phase of this assessment. Which roles will we embrace and which will we exclude? Emphasis on some things we are doing less of.

Findings: LCC committee roles** Note, this was not a question in the interview, however, some perspectives emerged about the roles of the two committees **

Technical Core Team Role

• Develop scientific approaches and questions about the priority issues

• Set priorities• Bring the expertise about issues• Set direction• Do the work the Steering

Committee directs (i.e. create databases or run analysis)

• Coordinate LCC efforts

Steering Committee Role

• Set direction• Set priorities• Build the collaboration• Identify science needs• Be the communication piece

Some potential conflicts emerged between roles, are these adequately addressed in new “Operational Procedures?”

Findings: Effective CollaborationCoordination versus Collaboration

Interview question assessed interpretations of the words coordination and collaboration. These distinctions may be important when considering the role of the LCC, as well as the staff and committee roles going forward.

Coordination“Anybody can say, well we coordinate with this or that organization. That can be a phone call, that can be an annual meeting… that’s not really working together”.“Coordination is like I’m doing my thing, you’re doing your thing but we’re kind of, trying not to crash into each other”.

Collaboration“Collaboration is people rolling up their sleeves and doing work together”.“Collaboration is when my work is actually benefitting your work and visa versa”

Findings: Effective CollaborationExperiences with collaboration:

Almost everyone is very used to collaborating and does quite a bit of it (87%)

There is recognition that collaboration is necessary.“There’s no single agency, no organization, I don’t care how large, that can do it all. Nobody has all the money, nobody has all the knowledge, nobody has all the people that can do what’s needed out there. We all have different skill sets and different areas of interests and I think we have to collaborate. It’s just something we need to do.”

“I don’t think we could achieve conservation on the ground without it. I mean I think those partnerships and collaborations, developing from the beginning, where you want to go and where you want to be, and how you want to measure your success, is critical to getting anything accomplished.”

Summary: Effective CollaborationTo LCC participants in Phase 1, coordination means to lead, direct, or manage, while collaboration means to work together.

What does that mean for the roles of the LCC Staff and committee members? Nearly all participants were experienced with collaborationBarriers to collaboration include:

Constrained Resources (63%)Number of existing partnerships in the UMGL region (30%)Inflexible policies & procedures (27%)Individual personalities not suited to collaboration (27%)Lack of effective communication (17%)Failure to define clear goals and responsibilities (17%)

Best strategies to collaboration include: Build Trust and relationships (43%)Constant Communication that reaches people (40%)Set shared goals and strategies (33%)Having people with collaborative personalities (17%)

Broad consensus exists on the how we should work together. Almost all points of consensus can be used to guide operations of the LCC.

Findings: Criteria for LCC Projects

5 groups of criteria were articulated:

Landscape-scale focus (57%)

Specific topics (50%)

Focus on existing need & greatest good (27%)

Management relevance (27%)

Administrative considerations (7%)

Findings: Criteria for LCC Projects

Landscape-Scale Focus (57%). Articulated in two main ways.Geographic scale of the issue: Should be an issue that occurs across most of the UM&GL region. Articulated as:

Large-scale ecological processes. The issue is prevalent in many of the ecosystems represented in this region.

Applicability or relevance to number of partners: Should be an issue shared by many partners and jurisdictions in the region. Articulated by either:

The number of partners affected by the issue.The number of agency partners committed to working on the issue.

** Scale considerations **Large scale: Number of LCC’s a project or focus would benefit.

versusSmaller scale: LCC work needs to benefit states so they can justify involvement.

Findings: Criteria for LCC ProjectsSpecific Topics (50%)

Specific topics were put forth as potential criteria for LCC projects. They are grouped below into categories of topics for consideration.

• Ecosystem characteristics• Biodiversity• Threats

• Such as climate change or invasive species• Environmental functions and processes

• Resiliency• Ecosystem services

• Management• Adaptation & planning

• Humans• “People in nature”

• Landscapes represented in the region: • Great Lakes• Fisheries• Water• Grasslands• Forests• Prairies• Wetlands• Unique landscapes• Vulnerable landscapes

• Species & species characteristics• Fish and wildlife• Species health• Vulnerable species

Findings: Criteria for LCC Projects

Focus on Existing Need & Greatest Good (27%)Suggested criteria questions:

Where is conservation money already going and how can the LCC add value to that issue?

Are there gaps in information? In funding?

Are multiple entities going to benefit if the LCC gets involved? (i.e. biggest bang for the buck).

Don’t duplicate existing efforts.

Is a specific issue not being adequately handled by existing efforts?

Findings: Criteria

Management Relevance (27%)Criteria linking issues or projects to management were articulated in the following ways:

Producing management relevant tools and scienceShould be existing understanding of how tools or science will be implemented or applied.Should be clear how the tools or science will help agencies on the ground.

Should help manage through uncertainties of transition period. Can address science debates about the costs and benefits of management actions.

Findings: Criteria for LCC Projects

Administrative Considerations (7%)Seek opportunities for politically and socially important projects and where there is fundingConsider credentials of scientists applying for fundingConsider overhead rateConsider matching funds

Summary: Criteria for LCC ProjectsWhat are the boundaries for the 5 criteria categories?

Examples: Landscape-scale focus

What is landscape-scale? LCC-wide? Larger or smaller than an LCC?

Specific TopicsVulnerable Species? Only wide-ranging?

Existing Need and Greatest GoodHow will we assess that?

Management RelevanceHow will that be measured?

Administrative ConcernsWhat overhead is acceptable?

Clear consensus on criteria the LCC will use to identify LCC projects is critical before looking at shared conservation priorities later on in this assessment.

Findings: 5-Point LCC Conservation Framework

Summary: 5-Point LCC Conservation Framework

Approximately half of the participants were familiar and comfortable with adaptive management cycles similar to this. (43%)Critiques stem from how the elements of the framework relate to each other and to actual practice. (20%) Most comments about using the Framework relate to how the LCC is going to move this conceptual framework to an implementation framework. (7%)

Reflection and consensus on the 5-Point LCC Conservation Framework will help when looking at shared conservation priorities later on in this assessment. Do we agree “Conservation Actions” lay outside the purview of the LCC? Will/can the LCC take on “Out-come Based Monitoring” which seems to be a common weakness?

Going forward

We hope these findings stimulate meaningful conversations about the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes LCC and it’s role in this region.

Phase 2 will:Synthesize and present findings on shared conservation priorities in light of your clarification and discussion on Phase 1 interviews on roles and criteriaAssess perspectives from regional entities not currently represented in the region to assess response to priorities