Download The Marine Outcomes Monitoring framework

William Crosse
Conservation International
The Marine Outcomes Monitoring
Framework
William Crosse
Outcomes Monitoring, Washington DC
i
William Crosse
Conservation International
Content:
1.
1.1
Introduction
2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
Global threats to marine biodiversity
1
Background
2-3
2.4
Fishing
Habitat loss
Pollution
Climate Change
3.
Monitoring biodiversity, threats and conservation actions
3-5
4.
Background to outcomes definition & monitoring
5-11
4.1
Outcomes definition
Objectives of outcomes monitoring
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
Conceptual State, Pressure and Response Model
Time frame of reporting change detection & level of confidence in measuring
conservation success
Multi-scale framework
5.
Applying terrestrial framework to marine systems
5.1
5.2
5.3
Lack of knowledge of species conservation status
Limitations in using satellite remote sensing for habitat change
detection
Delineating marine biodiversity conservation corridors
6.
Seascapes
15-17
7.
Detailed indicator descriptions
17-44
7.1
Core indicators for measurement
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.1.4
Number of threatened species is reduced
Key Biodiversity areas are formally safeguarded
Key habitats & critical ecological functions are maintained at protected KBAs
Connectivity allows natural biotic interactions to be maintained
i
11-15
William Crosse
Conservation International
7.2
Additional recommended state indicators for implementation
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
7.2.4
Species on the Red List are down-listed
Target species of biodiversity importance are maintained at KBAs
Ecological integrity is maintained at KBAs
Ecological integrity is maintained at KBAs
7.3
Additional pressure & response indicators for implementation
7.3.1
7.3.2
7.3.3
7.3.4
7.3.5
Globally threatened species are being studied
Species are nationally protected
Commercial exploitation of globally threatened species is reduced
Management and enforcement plans exist & are adopted
Biodiversity threats are reduced
8.
Applying regional perspective to the global model
9.
Conclusion
48
10.
References
49-54
11.
Appendix
55-57
11.1
Indicator Matrix
Acronyms
11.2
ii
42-47
William Crosse
1.
Conservation International
Introduction:
1.1 Background
Extinction risk and the ultimate loss of marine biodiversity is a massive problem facing society and the
conservation community today. The perception that the sea is vast and has limitless resources came
about from an inaugural speech by Thomas. H. Huxley who formed the basis of the idea that
overexploitation of marine species was not possible. Thus for years many have believed marine
species to be extinction proof because of their assumed large geographical ranges, vast population
sizes, long-distance dispersal and very high fecundity values. A great myth surrounding the marine
realm is the ‘million eggs hypothesis’ that presumes the high fecundity of many fishes and marine
invertebrates safeguards them from extinction. This presumption remains surprisingly common among
the fishing industry and many fishery management models and tools are still designed to generate
maximum sustainable yields and socio-economic outputs without much consideration for the
biological and ecological effects of fishing. While the management of biodiversity and fisheries do go
hand in hand, tools to sustain and even enhance marine ecosystem goods and services should be built
on the philosophy of initially conserving the foundations of biodiversity, not vice versa.
Recent scientific studies have rigorously challenged this ‘extinction resistant’ mind-set (Roberts et al,
2002, Carlton et al, 1999, Dulvy et al, 2003, Edgar et al, 2005) some with the sole aim of changing
many of the assumptions now firmly ingrained in fisheries management. Contemporary studies have
found that anthropogenic effects such as pollution, fishing, invasive species and climate change are
dramatically depressing marine populations. While many species typically possess large geographical
ranges and efficient dispersal capabilities, many also are range restricted and thus major pressures are
causing dramatic declines in these populations (Edgar et al, 2005). With the presence of species
limited in range, prevailing habitat destruction and trophic dysfunction from fishing effects will
exasperate the growing extinction problem (Roberts et al, 2002).
2. Global threats to marine biodiversity:
2.1 Fishing:
One of the major threats facing marine systems, from shallow to deep waters and in even remote
locations of the oceans, is intensive industrial fishing practices. Fishing pressure, both direct and
indirect, is a real extinction threat for many species. A prime example is the spectacular collapse of the
haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) fishery on the Southern Grand Bank and St Pierce Bank,
perhaps the most commercially important ground fish in the region. After years of over-exploitation in
the 1950’s, the population recovered for a short period only to be over-fished once more. Failure to
conserve the spawners, combined with fishing of a very high intensity reduced the stocks to low
abundance levels. Presently, after years of no direct fishing effort, there are small signs of a population
increase but it will still take a substantially long time for the species to regain it’s former status in the
ecosystem (Myers & Ottensmeyer, 2005).
Extinction risk is also a huge factor through non-target fishing, particularly in the form of by-catch.
The fishing industry has largely been geared towards target species, yet huge technological advances
1
William Crosse
Conservation International
and the creation of new innovative ways to catch species have meant that while fisheries still remain
focused on only a suite of commercially important species, the catch methods are now very non
selective. By-catch incidences are now very common and presently fall through the cracks and
inadequacies of many fishery management tools. As a result the disappearance of large, conspicuous
individuals commonly goes unchecked and unnoticed (Heppell et al, 2005). This is of particular
concern for older maturing species with lower reproductive rates such as elasmobranchs. From a
species perspective, the Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) population in the Pacific has
declined substantially. While nesting sites have been rigorously protected on the Mexican Pacific
coast, this has recently had very little effect and is largely negated through by-catch incidences. The
drastic decline of this historically large population has been linked to the introduction of new gillnet
swordfish fisheries off the Chilean coast. Whilst obviously having a huge impact on the Leatherback
population, the number of incidences remains largely unknown. Without tracking by-catch numbers,
serious population declines can easily go unnoticed (Myers & Ottensmeyer, 2005).
The effects of fishing on ecosystem structure and function have been studied recently and the concepts
of sliding baselines and trophic cascades are now well documented (Jackson et al., 2001, Pauly et al.,
1998). Ecological theories now recognize the role of people in influencing multiple state and
alternative conditions in ecosystems (Knowlton, 2004). Striking patterns of increasing macro-algae
have been evident in the Caribbean in recent years and while there is a case that nitrification is partly
responsible for increasing plant cover, the more prevalent reason appears to be a weakening of trophic
interactions from declines in abundance, size and effectiveness of key grazers (Peterson & Estes,
2001). Historical trends in the Caribbean have seen predatory fish, most notably groupers, snappers,
and triggerfish, targeted for high value. As populations declined, fishing began focusing on
herbivorous fish such as parrotfish and surgeonfish (see: Fishing Down Food Webs, Pauly et al.,
1998). Since these populations also began to decline, sea urchins (Diadema), which are strong
competitors of vertebrate herbivores for algal resources, increased in the absence of both carnivorous
predators and their herbivorous competitors (Jackson, 2001). By the 1980’s the herbivore’s trophic
function was mostly controlled by only one species, Diadema antillarum, until its mass population
explosion led to epizootic disease in 1983, massively reducing sea urchin populations, effectively
creating herbivore trophic dysfunction. Because little functional redundancy now exists due to
extensive fishing of vertebrate herbivores, reefs that have come to rely on sea urchin grazing are
collapsing dramatically. Widespread phase shifts are becoming evident as algal species begin to
overwhelm and hinder the growth and settlement of key reef building scleractinian corals. Since hard
coral species are the most critical habitat-forming species in the Caribbean, this is having detrimental
effects on the system’s biodiversity and ability to support threatened and other habitat-responding
species (Steneck & Sala: In Press). This case study is one of the best documented phase shifts and
clearly illustrates the association between ecosystem effects and fishing activity.
2.2 Habitat loss
Habitat degradation is also of great concern for marine systems and has enormous extinction
implications. The degradation of coastal and deep-sea corals, kelp forests, mangroves and sea-grass
beds is strongly correlated with the ability of other benthic, as well as demersal species, to survive and
reproduce (Myers & Ottensmeyer, 2005). Modern day threats, including dredging, bottom trawling
and other forms of harvesting gear, are destroying the complexity of ecosystems by reducing biomass,
species richness, species diversity and the spatial rugosity of benthic habitats; species that are critically
important for sustaining the viability of other taxa, including juvenile stages of many important
2
William Crosse
Conservation International
organisms such as keystone, umbrella and commercially-important species. Trawling and dredging are
of particular concern in the deep sea where the magnitude of such activities is of great concern due to
very slow growing and late sexual maturity of deep-sea organisms. Recovery of seamount
communities from such destructive activity may take centuries or more (Roberts, 2002).
2.3 Pollution
Anthropogenic pollution in the form of toxic accumulations, human-made organics or noise from
shipping, development and military use can potentially directly harm species as well as disrupt food
web structures. Land-based pollution, particularly nutrient run-off from coastal agriculture and
siltation from deforestation and construction, is a major contributor to ecosystem health. In tropical
systems, nutrient pollution and siltation severely reduce coral abundance and diversity. Sedimentation
run-off can dramatically smother local populations, hindering recruitment and settlement rates and
ultimately increasing vulnerability to extinction. In temperate systems, large areas subjected to nutrient
pollution and extensive eutrophication effects can trigger the loss of local macro-algae populations,
principally species adapted to nutrient poor conditions that will be out-competed by more dominant
species (Worm et al, 2002).
2.4 Climate change
Human induced effects driving global warming are shifting environmental patterns quicker than many
marine species can adapt to. Species vulnerable to extinction are becoming more apparent and effects
of climate change on marine systems are increasingly observed. Shifting oceanographic regimes, and
the frequency and severity of the inter-annual environmental fluctuation, El Nino/Southern Oscillation
(ENSO) event, are particularly detrimental. The most documented influence of these shifts occurred
with the collapse of the Peruvian Anchovy fishery. Occasional changes in direction of physical
oceanographic regimes creates a surface thermocline of warm water that shuts off upwelling currents
and consequently hampers the arrival of nutrient rich deep water to the continental shelf. This
deficiency in nutrient cycling modifies the structure of plankton communities and the spatial
distribution of predator and prey populations. These patterns were observed with the commercially
important Peruvian anchovy fishery in 1972 when temperatures rose noticeably and upwelling activity
of nutrient rich water almost came to a halt.
Rising temperatures coinciding with ENSO fluctuations is also causing dramatic coral bleaching
events, a consequence of photosynthetic zooxanthellae being expelled by the corals with which they
form an endosymbiont relationship. Bleaching incidences appear to be ever increasing and extensive
coral mortality is occurring, subsequently reducing the fecundity of these critical habitat-forming
species. The ensuing suppression of recruitment and settlement activity makes recovery infrequent and
often extremely difficult.
3. Monitoring biodiversity, threats and conservation action:
There are a number of global, regional, national and project level initiatives that measure the state of
biodiversity as well as it’s associated threats and the range of conservation tools implemented to
sustain the critical biodiversity components. While some of these initiatives utilize existing historical
information to look at past trends, others focus on repeated measurements so to consistently measure
the broad range of biodiversity components and ecosystem services (Green et al, 2004). The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment for example, reviews status and trends in biodiversity information
3
William Crosse
Conservation International
and is designed to meet the needs of decision makers and the general public, most notably for
scientific information concerning the consequences of ecosystem change for human welfare and
poverty alleviation. Similarly, the Living Planet Index (LPI) is an indicator of the state of global
biodiversity. While it focuses mainly on measuring trends in vertebrate species populations, LPI
represents a useful and powerful mechanism for centralizing global data and generating time series
index information for particular species and specific regions (Loh, 2002). The index, derived for
marine, terrestrial and freshwater species is an excellent example of a monitoring platform for
illustrating how indices should be developed and presented (Loh, 2002). The ‘State of the Nation’s
Ecosystems’ maintained and published by the Heinz Center, also documents status and trend changes
in land use patterns and living resource components exclusively in the US. A 2002 report identified
specific indicators formulated collaboratively by environmental institutions, businesses, academic
institutions and state, federal and local governments. These status measures provide data of current
conditions and past trends as well as highlight the many considerable gaps in our ability to effectively
describe and measure key biodiversity characteristics.
From a marine stance a number of networks have been formed to bring together monitoring
practitioners and promote the sharing and collaborative management of data necessary to generate
large-scale biodiversity trend information. The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) for
instance, formed when the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) called for many nations to
commit themselves towards increasing research and systematic coral reef monitoring so to provide
critical data for evaluating effective management and measuring overarching conservation successes.
Such a network aims to standardize monitoring strategies by linking together organizations to monitor
ecological and socio-economic aspects of coral reefs and ultimately allow for the dissemination of
coral reef status and trend results at the local, regional and global scales. Supporting these
developments are coral reef database systems that provide data housing for analysis and decision
making purposes. Reefbase, an online coral reef information base, now holds a built in GIS system
that maps monitoring capacity, protected areas and ecological and physical features collected through
Reef Check protocols,. While current representation is coarse, the developing COREMO III data entry,
storage and analysis system will consolidate more comprehensive GCRMN (Global Coral Reef
Monitoring Network) coral reef biota and socio-economic data and bring a time-series component to
Reefbase (Tun & Oliver: In development). In addition, The Millennium Coral Reef Mapping Project
managed by The Institute of Marine Remote Sensing at the University of South Florida (Andréfouét et
al) is establishing the first global uniform map of shallow coral reef systems. By storing a mosaic of
Landsat 7 satellite maps, managers can use the extensive online resource to identify large scale spatial
descriptions of reef locations and geological boundaries.
Global and regional monitoring networks are very important and further synergy between existing
partners and organizations is necessary if we are to tackle current problems of relevant data shortages
and information fragmentation. Historically, the conservation community has not employed a
systematic, consistent framework for measuring the status of biodiversity. We are still a long way off
scaling up local and regional monitoring studies to track global-scale changes in biodiversity,
particularly with regards to data management and spatial and temporal representation. Nevertheless
under the overarching guidance of the United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) a set
of core indicators and recommendations have been formulated, presenting a first step in the
development of a global monitoring framework. Furthermore key organizations are working together
more closely to develop a framework as recommended by Green et al (2004). The Conservation
4
William Crosse
Conservation International
Measures Partnership (CMP) for example, is a collaborative effort of conservation NGOs that seek to
improve ways to design, manage and measure the impacts of their conservation investments. This is
with the aim of increasing the efficiency of broad scale trend monitoring and ultimately tracking
progress towards the 2010 target, most notably assessing how our conservation efforts are doing in
slowing the rates of biodiversity loss. Strengthening and harmonizing existing monitoring initiatives is
critical to increasing our confidence in measuring biodiversity at multiple scales.
4. Background to outcomes definition & monitoring
4.1 Outcomes definition and delineation of Key Biodiversity Areas
Conservation International (CI) recognizes that decisions on site conservation actions should not be
driven primarily by socio-economic, political and opportunistic reasoning because such an ad hoc and
biased framework may mean critical biodiversity components are missed. Instead site selection must
take on a data driven approach that guides effective conservation of species, areas and biodiversity
conservation corridors. At each scale of ecological organization, conservation targets have been
developed to ensure our specific investments and actions are successfully allowing the long-term
persistence of biodiversity within global priority regions (Conservation International, 2002a). These
are referred to as conservation outcomes. Using surrogate information to prioritize conservation targets
does not align well with CI’s vision of avoiding species extinctions. Rather than using biogeophysical
data to establish coarse filter habitat and ecosystems polygons for conservation planning (see Beck et
al, 2003), the outcomes definition process reduces reliance on habitats, keystone species or physical
parameters as surrogates for species susceptible to extinction. CI avoids assuming functionally
important taxon adequately suffice for other species when applying conservation plans to mitigate
extinction rates. As argued by Brooks et al (2004), the building blocks of conservation planning
should begin directly with the species themselves.
Outcomes definition is based on the notion that biodiversity should not be measured as a single unit
but instead across a hierarchal continuum of ecological scales (Wilson, 1992). Thus conservation
outcomes are defined within three measurable levels (species, sites, corridors), taking an approach that
begins with the species. Identifying, mapping and consolidating taxonomic information on species
seen as either irreplaceable or threatened with extinction instigates CI’s bottom up process to
conservation. Building on this, site scale conservation action then targets appropriate species that meet
the thresholds of one of four quantitative categories of criteria. These are: a) Globally threatened
species (Globally Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable as identified by the IUCN Red
List); b) Species restricted in range; c) Congregations of species localized at a particular site during
some stage in their life cycle; or d) Biome restricted species assemblages. Overlaying temporal and
spatial species population and distribution point locality data with environmental and socio-economic
features (habitat cover, protected area boundaries) enables the identification and delineation of areas
key to the persistence of the species, its habitat(s) of preference and the ecological processes it
depends on. Collectively this information is used to define Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), a globally
applicable and standardized framework used to identify and ensure that networks of globally important
sites are safeguarded (Eken et al, 2004). KBAs represent the basis of our ‘Areas protected’ outcomes.
5
William Crosse
Conservation International
Additional comments:
The species based concept underlying KBA delineation has been tested and implemented in the
terrestrial realm, but a number of questions are still to be answered when applying the model to the
marine environment. With this in mind, CI is currently undertaking analysis to test the four categories
of KBA criteria in the marine realm and identify quantifiable thresholds, whether absolute or
percentage values, that classify vulnerable and irreplaceable species as conservation targets. Given the
current paucity of marine taxa data as well as fundamental differences between terrestrial and marine
systems, this will be an adaptive process as application begins in the field. The Conservation Synthesis
Department in the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science (CABS) is presently drawing up initial
guidelines based on outputs from the marine KBA workshop and the ongoing work of Graham Edgar
and Penny Langhammer.
While defining sites as KBAs encompasses the distributional ranges and habitat and resource
preferences of target species, the approach does not consider the needs of wide-ranging species with
larger distributional ranges. In order to select the most effective and efficient actions for a given site, it
will be necessary to develop conservation strategies in areas surrounding sites to also account for the
large-scale ecological and evolutionary processes that maintain many species populations (Boyd,
2004). Management responses in areas surrounding KBAs also address regional scale threats to
biodiversity. Such outside pressures are of equal concern to the persistence of target species and thus
safeguarding against non-threatened species loss, habitat loss and fragmentation problems is of equal
importance to the viability of the species within the KBA. The development of biodiversity
conservation corridors aims to account for these issues by basing design and implementation on three
principles: scale, connectivity and resilience (Boyd, 2004). Defined as a target to preserve critical
biodiversity components as well as a tactic to consider existing and emerging threats originating
outside KBAs, this highest ecological scale represents our ‘corridors consolidated’ outcomes
(Conservation International, 2004a).
4.2 Objectives of outcomes monitoring
The need for a systematic and consistent monitoring framework is evident. Continued absence will
hinder our ability to conclusively and quantitatively demonstrate that conservation actions are: the
right ones, in the right place and achieving the conservation results we intend. Moreover without
monitoring our conservation progress and assessing our impacts, we run the risk of pouring
considerable resources into conservation actions that are not effectively conserving the key
components of biodiversity: the species, habitats and ecological processes (Wilkie, 2004). Being able
to accurately and confidently monitor the status of biodiversity in relation to our conservation
investments is critical. This is particularly important in light of the recent decisions at the World
Summit on Sustainable Development and the CBD where world leaders united and agreed to
significantly reduce the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.
With this in mind, CI has been working closely with other organizations to develop a robust and
globally representative approach to measuring biodiversity status and ultimately conservation success.
Building on CI’s scientific and data driven approach to conservation, outcomes monitoring has been
created to encompass monitoring and evaluating specific conservation targets and actions. These
intend to inform whether or not conservation actions are meeting planned objectives as well as to
6
William Crosse
Conservation International
assist in revising our strategies by identifying why and where conservation intervention is most
needed.
As mentioned, CI has defined biome neutral conservation outcomes by recognizing that biodiversity
occurs across multiple scales of ecological organization, from species to corridors. This is with the
understanding that the measurement of biodiversity must be expanded to consider an ecosystem-based
approach to account for the important ecological and evolutionary processes that complement the
long-standing species-level emphasis (Royal Society, 2002). CI communicates its outcomes by setting
targets at each level. They are:



‘Extinctions Avoided’ outcomes: the conservation of globally threatened species and
geographically concentrated species (which have a high probability of extinction in the
short and medium term future).
‘Areas Protected’ outcomes: the conservation of KBAs, and
‘Corridors Consolidated’ outcomes: the conservation of ecological functions through the
consolidation of biodiversity conservation corridors.
Species
Sites
Seascapes
Extinctions
Avoided
Areas
Protected
Corridors
Created
Biosphere
Genes
Increasing scale of ecological organization
Figure. 1: Hierarchal scales of ecological organization that define outcomes definition and
monitoring strategies.
Outcomes Monitoring is designed to systematically measure progress towards achieving these three
broad scale outcomes targets. It does not aim to be a complete and detailed monitoring protocol
measuring sensitive ecological or socio-economic trends (Conservation International, 2004a), but
7
William Crosse
Conservation International
instead aims to capture aspects of these variations by intervention monitoring initiatives currently in
development. The proposed outcomes monitoring indicators are generic, transparent and considered to
be cost-effective, applicable to all marine systems, and strongly correlated to achievement of the above
three conservation outcomes. Furthermore, their standardized nature will help CI promote
effectiveness of conservation actions to local, national and international partners, including the CBD,
as well as to donors.
While the main objective of the marine outcomes monitoring framework is to measure our success in
achieving these three conservation outcomes it should also act as an early warning mechanism by
generating output information at a level of resolution high enough to capture sensitive changes in
biodiversity components, most notably species abundance trends, habitat distribution and ecosystem
composition changes. Monitoring strategies not only serve the purpose of measuring conservation
targets, they also have the ability to identify and guide meaningful decision making with respect to
further conservation action. By monitoring and capturing changes in biodiversity at different levels of
resolution and across multiples spatial scales, conservationists can utilize predictive modeling
initiatives enabling them to anticipate and ultimately counteract impending biodiversity loss and
irreversible resource damage with adaptive management actions. Predictive dynamic modeling
provides important information to scientists and decision makers (stakeholders, governments) with
respect to future trajectories of biodiversity components and dynamics under current or future
conditions (Ruth & Lindholm, 2002). Long-term monitoring information, if accurate and descriptive,
presents the critical baseline data to generate such models. The more systematic and comprehensive
this data, the better our understanding of fluctuating dynamics associated with complex marine species
and ecosystems. A recent meta-population modeling analysis by Mumby & Dytham (In Press) on
Caribbean hard corals emphasized this point by identifying gaps in ecological knowledge, namely
connectivity patterns, that continue to hinder our insight into causalities between fluctuating
parameters and changes in coral reef phase shift dynamics. Historical baseline monitoring data is
imperative if future models are to acknowledge the susceptibility of biodiversity to direct and indirect
threats as well as how effectively species and ecosystems respond to different levels and types of
conservation action. Both are vital in helping practitioners establish thresholds and set more
quantitative targets.
Although the hub of a monitoring framework should focus on the biophysical system (state), the
importance in measuring socio-economic (pressure) and management (response) variables should also
be underlined. To have high confidence that biodiversity is being preserved, monitoring resources
(human, financial, material) should be channeled to directly measure the precise biophysical factors of
interest. However to better comprehend the correlative relationships between conservation
interventions, the threats to biodiversity and the status of species, habitats and ecological processes, we
need to also invest in assessing how well we are sustaining conservation/management tools as well as
documenting changes in the levels of direct and indirect threats. Long-term, repeated measurements of
the state, pressure and response variables enables conceptual models to be developed which in turn
allows monitoring practitioners to better recognize the causal linkages between biophysical, social and
management systems. Establishing clear correlations will allow CI and partners to better demonstrate
which conservation outputs and activities are most capable of changing existing threat behaviors and
subsequently achieving the desired three conservation outcomes outlined above.
8
William Crosse
Conservation International
4.2.1 Simplistic conceptual State, Pressure & Response Model:
Figure. 2: Hypothesized causal linkages measuring conservation success
Baseline
established
STATE
Biophysical System
Quantity and quality of
species, area and corridor
scale conservation outcomes
e.g. IUCN status, Ecosystem
Integrity
Adaptive
management
PRESSURES
Socio-economic
System
Threats to the
conservation of
species, area and
corridor outcomes e.g.
fishing activity
RESPONSE
Management System
Actions taken to
mitigate threats e.g.
protected area status
Adaptive
management
The pressure, state and response model is perhaps the most common basis for many existing
monitoring frameworks as it provides a very useful way to organize the formulation of indicators for
measurement. In simple terms the model can be thought of as a cyclic process whereby conservation
interventions (responses) are established based upon baseline information that captures the present
state of the biophysical system and the current magnitude and extent of direct and indirect biodiversity
threats. Environmental, economic and policy response mechanisms are implemented strategically to
alleviate the range of social, political and economic activities exerted through human pressures.
Changing existing behaviors and alleviating threats will directly and indirectly affect the state of the
system, whether species, site or corridor components. Finally a change in the state of the system will
drive adaptive conservation actions. Increasing knowledge and confidence in linkages between the
three system variables can promote the refinement of management and conservation mechanisms that
help progress the goal of achieving conservation outcomes at the species, site and corridor level.
9
William Crosse
Conservation International
4.2.2 Time frame of reporting change detection & level of confidence in measuring conservation
success
Measuring the success of our conservation investments will require patience as no correlative analyses
can be conducted until we begin to systematically track and eventually detect changes in the
biophysical components of the SPR model. Fundamentally the change in species and habitats over
space and time will determine how well our conservation action is doing in successfully alleviating
indirect and direct threats. Nevertheless, it may be 10 to 20 years before even subtle variations in
biodiversity trends can be observed with confidence and it is therefore crucial to secure long-term
funding for monitoring. This is principally true for change in the conservation status of threatened
species.
With this in mind, outcomes monitoring has recognized the importance in developing indicators that
report changing conditions and situations more rapidly. These measures are essentially response and
threat based indicators (pressure). Focusing preliminary measurement activities on our conservation
actions/interventions and the threats they target will allow us, as a conservation community, to report
changing situations to practitioners, donors and other decision-makers in the near-term. Collecting the
information necessary to document changing levels of conservation action and threat is often less
costly and easier to undertake than measuring the species and habitats we fundamentally aim to protect
(figure 3). For this reason donors tend to focus more on immediate conservation successes rather than
variations in the biophysical system in the short-term.
Figure. 3: Monitoring progress of state, pressure and response measurements
Outputs
Level of
effectiveness &
confidence in
measurement
State
Conservation
target
Pressure
Threats
Time frame
of observing
change and
reporting
trends
Milestone
s
Response
Interventions
Activities
Costs of measurement
Figure derived from Living Landscapes (Wilkie, 2004)
4.2.2 Multi-scale framework
Intervention vs. outcomes monitoring
Global monitoring initiatives are still a long way from collating and centralizing regional and site
monitoring strategies and scaling up such information to consistently monitor changes across different
10
William Crosse
Conservation International
scales. Nevertheless outcomes monitoring is tackling this issue by developing a multi-scale framework
that aims to uniform, to the extent possible, biodiversity monitoring across different levels of data
resolution and spatial scales. This is from the broad regional and global scale to local levels that focus
on higher resolution measurements that explicitly identify the success or failure of particular
conservation interventions applied to a local context. To do this CI and partners are striving to
standardize a set of global, national and local level indicators (while also including a region-specific
set of indicators as necessary) implemented to measure gradients of change in necessary variables.
Improving communication and data coordination among NGO’s, scientific institutions, governments
and local stakeholders will synergize the vast network of marine monitoring approaches allowing
relevant data delivered at the project level to be filtered up to a higher scale. Indicators have been
developed to measure the degree of change in the marine biome, its associated threats and the specific
conservation responses applied to tackle them. If the flow of information remains spatially and
temporally consistent and representative through effective avenues of communication, we can be more
confident in our systematic measurement of indicators and, ultimately, our assessment of whether we
are actually reducing current rates of biodiversity loss by 2010.
Figure. 4 - Collation and analysis of monitoring information at different scales
Scales of reporting changing situations including local, national, seascape and global levels
* Database will allow for more general
information and analysis will be relevant to
help set global & regional priorities
Increasing data extent (more
areas/sites included and compared)
(1) Change in threatened status through
IUCN Red List Index
(2) Change in ecological integrity status
Global-scale
Detailed data fed into indices
for broad scale status
measurement
* Projects with high-resolution indicators.
Analysis will be relevant to the site/project
(1) Absolute abundance and distribution
population information of threatened
species
(2) Abundance and distribution of
architectural and keystone species
Increasing data resolution
(more detailed information)
Regional-scale
Nationalscale
Local
scale
Local
scale
Information
Filter
Information
Filter
Regional-scale
Nationalscale
Local
scale
Nationalscale
Local
scale
Local
scale
*Local scale indicator information required to measure regional and global trends is
filtered up & distilled for regional and global trend analysis
*Analysis of broader trends guides adaptive management & identifies gaps conservation
priorities at finer spatial monitoring scales
*Figure derived from effectiveness Vs status monitoring concept paper (Balasubramanian, 2005).
11
William Crosse
Conservation International
5. Challenges in applying terrestrial outcomes monitoring framework and
indicators to marine systems
The outcomes monitoring framework has been successfully applied to terrestrial systems and baselinemonitoring information is currently being established in many priority regions. While promoting
consistency between terrestrial and marine monitoring approaches is essential for improving the
likelihood of adoption of indicators by nation-states, some notable differences and gaps need
mentioning.
5.1 Lack of knowledge of species conservation status:
First and foremost the lack of marine species on the Red List is of major concern. The IUCN Red List
of Endangered species only lists 2.5% of the threatened animal species as marine (Edgar et al, 2004).
Data deficiencies not only limits our ability to track the conservation status of species but also
emphasizes the drastic need for further quantitative abundance and distribution data to explicitly
capture population dynamics of marine species. Our limited knowledge means the extinction of many
marine species may go unnoticed in the near future.
A rapid increase in the coverage of marine biodiversity information within the IUCN Red List requires
commitment to the Global Marine Species Assessment (GMSA) currently underway and led by Dr
Kent Carpenter. The initiative aims to assess the threat status of approximately 20,000 marine species,
including all vertebrates and selected invertebrates and plants. Additionally the program intends to
develop a mapping and database system that aligns strongly with the red list process and authority files
to allow efficient delivery of data and assessment of conservation status.
Nevertheless while the GMSA is in its early stages of development and implementation, it still
requires further supporting initiatives and consideration of a number of questions:
1) How best to provide financial and human resource support to marine specialist groups
already underway (Sharks, Rays, Coral reef fishes, Grouper, Sea-basses, Wrasses)?
2) How best to geo-reference species’ area of occurrence/extent by drawing polygons/shape
files around geographical ranges of species?
3) How to promote synergies between the GMSA and Regional Analysis? The marine GIS
section of CABS serves as a valuable spatial tool for creating species and habitat
distribution maps as well as a technical linkage between GMSA data and defining Key
Biodiversity Areas.
4) Identification of resourceful ways to feed existing species information into the species
assessment database. Are there opportunities to use existing database information (e.g.
Fishbase, OBIS, Reefbase, Algal-base)?
5) Is it necessary to rely on absolute population information to populate the GMSA or is an
index correlated to population size valid enough? For example, can catch statistics (index
12
William Crosse
Conservation International
of catch per unit effort) for commercially exploited vertebrates and invertebrates be touted
as reliable and acceptable data?
6) What specialist groups should be set up as highest priorities based on available funding and
resources? Should the GMSA give precedence to umbrella species, in particular key habitat
forming/architectural species (corals, plants) and habitat engineering/keystone species?
Assessment of these species will allow preliminary outcomes definition to also capture the
less charismatic, habitat conforming species that have not yet been assessed. Due to the
disproportionate role umbrella species play in supporting biodiversity components, their
assessment should be afforded high priority, at least until data on more cryptic species
becomes available. Habitat engineering species should also be easier to monitor, as most
are large, conspicuous and thus easily measured either in the field or through catch
statistics.
While the initiation of GMSA provides a platform to undertake species assessments, success firmly
relies on delivery of population data. Until field baseline collection of reliable information is regarded
as a priority, any attempt to formally assess species conservation status will remain impeded by the
lack of quantitative marine biodiversity information and the future knowledge of trends in biodiversity
loss will continue to be hampered (Royal Society, 2004). Rather than relying on wooly surrogates to
assess marine biodiversity baselines, concerted effort and investment should be channeled into the
systematic collection of biological data to feed and vastly enhance the GMSA and the Red List Index.
As expressed by Edgar et al (2005)
‘Until current funding to conserve marine biodiversity is partially applied to a
systematic global survey, we will continue to grope blindly with unrealistic models
when assessing and addressing threats.’
This report advocates such a critical assessment survey of coastal biodiversity by undertaking a pilot
monitoring program in a CI seascape (Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape) thereby assessing its costeffectiveness, comparative usefulness, and capability in confronting current problems, such as the lack
and patchiness of marine biodiversity data. Such a protocol has already been designed and provides a
sound platform from which to build.
*For further information please refer to: Global survey of coastal biodiversity (GSCB), and the
creation of a long-term monitoring baseline – A concept document. Graham Edgar, 2005
(Document is available in the Outcomes Monitoring E-room)
5.2 Limitations in using satellite remote sensing for habitat change detection
analysis:
Studies continue to investigate the opportunities of using satellite remote sensing for optical
discrimination of shallow water communities and spatial change detection analysis (Andréfouët et al,
2001). However the difficulty in using satellite remote sensing instruments to confidently classify and
map patch size and the distribution of habitats, in particular corals, kelp forests and sea-grass beds, still
serves as a significant constraint not experienced in forested terrestrial systems. Higher resolution
remote sensing instruments, in the form of aerial photography (e.g. Compact Airborne Spectrographic
13
William Crosse
Conservation International
Imager) and advanced satellites (QuickBird, IKONOS), are also not presently cost-effective for largescale application in marine environments.
The physical characteristics of the marine environment add some problematic limitations, in particular
the significant attenuation of light (signal) in the water column due to changes in water depth, turbidity
(turbidity is a notable limitation in temperate systems) and breaking waves. Capturing and
distinguishing between ecological properties and functions on satellite maps at the pixel level still
lacks the precision necessary to detect global changes, both spatially and temporally. Comparative
studies undertaken by Mumby et al (1997) addressed accuracies of two satellite sensors in the Turks &
Caicos Islands, establishing overall classification values of 73% using the Landsat Thematic Mapper
and 67% using SPOT XS. These figures were associated with the objective of merely identifying
polygons of coral reef, algal beds, sand and sea-grass habitats on satellite images. The low spectral
resolution (20, 30 meters) of both instruments impeded the assessment of more intermediate and finer
resolution information, hence classification of sea grass standing crop, discrimination between live and
dead coral cover, and the capture of algal cover density was not feasible. Observing change detection
by overlaying images in a time series manner would not recognize explicit variations in habitat and
community composition change and as a result identification of subtle effects associated with fishing,
climate change and invasive species could not be confidently detected.
For this reason there is still a need to implement systematic and intensive field sampling strategies
(as opposed to standard aerial or ground truthing methods used in terrestrial systems) to monitor the
critical biological and ecological components of marine systems. While direct ground based survey
work across large spatial scales will be expensive and time-consuming, field sampling does have the
advantage of possessing higher reliability values by capturing biophysical information at a greater
resolution, for example specific changes in species assemblages. As previously stated, observing
sensitive changes in the composition and structure of marine systems enables generated data to serve
as useful early warning information that allows models to predict and help counteract future threats to
biodiversity with well-guided adaptive conservation action. This is especially important in the marine
environment where the threat of fishing is subtler in its effects than terrestrial deforestation activity,
which can be observed by overlaying satellite imagery maps. Similar to timber extraction, direct
species overexploitation is of significant influence to ecosystem integrity and the viability of many
species. Fishing effects on ecosystem dysfunction must therefore be monitored in an absolute manner,
yet currently this cannot be done using contemporary satellite observation tools. More research and
development in technology is needed before satellite imagery can be employed to detect changes in
components other than gross shallow water bio-habitat structures.
5.3 Delineating marine biodiversity conservation corridors:
Although biodiversity conservation corridors in marine systems are particularly important because the
need to maintain connectivity stems from the openness of populations (Carr et al, 2003), large
information gaps still relate to ecological linkages, corridors and larval dispersal routes. In addition,
there is inadequate empirical knowledge of how spatial and temporal near-shore circulation patterns
distribute species and maintain ecological processes. While physical processes and subsequent
changes resulting from environmental and human influences (e.g. Climate Change) are known to
disrupt key biological parameters such as food supply, larval transport and the distribution of
chlorophyll a and nutrients (Cowen, 2001), at present only theoretical studies support suggestions that
14
William Crosse
Conservation International
populations among geographically separated sub-populations are connected due to complex
biological-physical interactions
Since limitations in understanding make it difficult to apply monitoring strategies to measure
conservation outcomes, cautious approaches to corridor conservation should be taken until further
research is undertaken in these areas. Future studies for example should build on current progress that
now questions whether marine populations may in fact have a larger degree of local retention between
production and recruitment than previously thought (Cowen et al, 2000, Roberts, 1997). These
contemporary theories, if continually tested, could have strong implications for marine reserve design
and the delineation of biodiversity conservation corridors that encompass connectivity patterns and
safeguard ecological mechanisms linking networks of managed KBAs. Additionally, scientific studies
need to better understand the physical/chemical/biological mechanisms that drive distributional
patterns of pelagic species whose movement is often independent of benthic features. For example
fragmentation of benthic habitats in marine systems is perhaps less of a convincing and plausible case
for corridor design compared to shifts in ocean circulation processes as a result of climate change
(Bechtel: unpublished). Measuring change in forest cover due to agriculture and settlement via
satellite imagery is far simpler than developing equivalent measures of impacts to bottom habitats
from trawl gear in deep-sea systems for example.
Nevertheless the physical nature of the marine environment dramatically expands the scales of
connectivity among marine communities and ecosystems, most notably the extent and rate of dispersal
of nutrients, materials, reproductive propagules and even marine species themselves (Bechtel:
unpublished). Significant influences on the spatial, genetic and trophic structures and dynamics are
very unique to marine ecosystems and only perhaps experienced by some terrestrial species (Carr et al,
2003). With this in mind the need for connectivity and the design and scale of conservation corridors
may differ somewhat between the marine and terrestrial biome and thus synonymous use of corridor
scales is not yet realistic. In terrestrial systems, the need for corridors to encompass KBAs is predominantly to address larger scale biological and ecological factors as well as habitat destruction
occurring in these surrounding matrix areas. While it may be necessary to delineate biodiversity
conservation corridors to prevent small scale habitat fragmentation and safeguard connectivity to
maintain the movement, recruitment and settlement of benthic species, it should also be recognized
that the movement of pelagic propagules and species is also often independent of benthic habitat
features (Carr et al, 2003). Corridors of larval dispersal, for example, involve water circulation
patterns and thus their description and delineation cannot be seen as static. Further scientific
understanding of current patterns and variability as well as knowledge of how such biological
components interact with these physical parameters is needed (Cowen, 2001).
6. Seascapes – a biodiversity target or a unit for reporting conservation success?
Current working definition:
Seascapes are large marine areas defined scientifically and strategically, in which a group of
authorities, organizations and stakeholders cooperate to achieve shared objectives of biodiversity
conservation and sustainable development. Seascapes typically have high biodiversity value,
ecological connectivity, and outstanding aesthetic and cultural value, and contain, or aim to contain,
a [network of] marine managed areas in a broader area providing for different uses and
[management] objectives as determined by the countries involved
15
William Crosse

Conservation International
Definition is currently undergoing further revisions based on continued institutional discussions.
The institutional interpretation of Seascapes needs to be addressed, particularly differentiating the
concept to Biodiversity Conservation Corridors that are similar in description (Conservation
International, 2004a). This has huge implications for both outcomes definition and monitoring, as it
has not yet been decided whether a seascape serves as a biodiversity target (‘seascapes consolidated’)
or a scale for reporting trend information.
The terrestrial outcomes monitoring framework is working to build capacity, funding and partnerships
to undertake outcomes monitoring in Hotspots and High Biodiversity Wilderness Areas and ultimately
report changing conditions at this regional scale. Equivalent to this, marine outcomes monitoring
needs to establish its scales of reporting trends so that regionally collected information can be
compared to other areas in order to evaluate the success or failure of overarching conservation
strategies. Furthermore, priority regions need to be delineated to better evaluate available capacity and
more efficiently channel effort into defining outcomes, implementing conservation tools and
monitoring biodiversity, threats and conservation investments. The work of outcomes definition, the
scientific underpinning of conservation, will be enormous as GMSA data becomes available and it is
only practical to therefore set limitations in initial effort by defining boundaries which at present are
largely demarcated by opportunity and feasibility criterion. To date, three areas referred to as
‘seascape units’ serve this purpose effectively. While these areas were chosen based on biological and
ecological characteristics, their explicit spatial scales were strategically defined by balancing socioeconomic and political constraints with opportunity costs. Such a ‘top-down’ approach is essential for
guiding and directing strategic ‘bottom up’ conservation, particularly when resources are restricted and
the unit areas are immense (and often encompassing the EEZ’s of numerous countries). The seascape
concept, whilst not driven by absolute biodiversity data as Hotspots are, can certainly facilitate
deciding and prioritizing where resources should be invested for initial outcomes definition and
conservation action. As it stands, the working concept will encompass species, sites and biodiversity
conservation corridors.
Sulu-Sulawesi Seascape, Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape (ETPS) and Papuan Bird’s Head Seascape
all include valuable marine biodiversity systems strongly connected through vital ecological
mechanisms such as speciation and larval dispersal. They therefore represent areas where the
definition, refinement and monitoring of conservation outcomes should be initially prioritized. With
the available technical expertise, investment and growing integration of regional stakeholders, now
presents a good opportunity to begin addressing scientific gaps, collecting baseline species
information, and undertaking outcomes definition (key deliverables of seascape work-plan agendas).
Building this infrastructure will allow future efforts of outcomes monitoring to more consistently and
systematically report on how biodiversity is changing in line with increased conservation action within
each seascape unit.
Implementation of the marine conservation strategies will move forward in these three defined priority
areas. However, there are two key concerns for the institution that will improve the efficacy of
ongoing and future efforts. They are the nomenclature and methodology for delineating Seascapes.
Conservation Synthesis at CI is presently engaged in developing criteria for the delineation of KBAs,
and will also need to work closely with Regional Marine Strategies, Regional Programs, CBCs and
16
William Crosse
Conservation International
others to articulate the criteria for defining and delineating the higher scale biodiversity conservation
corridors and Hotspot / High Biodiversity Wilderness Area equivalents for the marine realm.
Regarding nomenclature, the institution has striven to maintain a “biome neutral” approach to
conservation, and it may serve the conservation community better if CI used the terms seascape and
landscape synonymously to refer to the conservation targets at the scale of biodiversity conservation
corridor. These recommendations are based on the research conducted for this report as well as
observations of syntax and vocabulary in the conservation community (Kennedy: pers.comm.).
7. Detailed indicator descriptions
7.1 Core indicators for measurement
7.1.1 Number of threatened species is reduced: % change in number of threatened species in each
IUCN Red List category (State).
Conservation Outcome: ‘Extinction Avoided’
Background
The IUCN Red List is the best assessment presently available for identifying species that are in danger
of extinction as it is widely recognized as being objective, robust and representative across different
species groups, bio-geographic realms and biomes. It is a highly useful tool for prioritization of
species conservation action. However it is now also regarded as a convincing means for tracking the
threatened status of species across all taxonomic groups by using a Red List Index (RLI) that delivers
a calculated genuine change in species over time (Butchart et al, 2005). In this sense it strongly
correlates with CI’s species level outcome target of avoiding extinctions and thus is a useful direct
measure of the status of marine biodiversity at the species level.
The RLI illustrates the relative rate at which species change in overall threat status, principally through
three categories of threat: critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable (Butchart et al, 2005). The
information needed to trigger threatened species classification does not need to be specific and
uncertainties on population numbers and range sizes are accounted for in criteria calculations. In data
poor situations, which may be particularly valid for marine species, assessors can use expert and local
knowledge complemented by intelligent estimates about species parameters in order to apply
classification to selected species (IUCN, 2001).
The RLI is very much aligned with the objectives of outcomes monitoring as it provides one measure
by which to generate species, regional and biome specific status trends and thus evaluate the global
community’s success or failure in addressing biodiversity loss at the finest scale of ecological
organization: the species level, the most critical component of biodiversity presently feasible to
measure. The mechanism is scientifically sound, accountable and rigorous enough for the conservation
community to confidently use information outputs to report biodiversity trends and status. However,
whether the level of resolution is explicit enough to capture and report threatened status change in the
short-term remains questionable. While the index can potentially provide unique data on the rate of
biodiversity loss against which progress towards the 2010 CBD target can be judged and evaluated
(Royal Society, 2004), the coarse nature of the method may not allow change detection beyond initial
baseline to be observed by this date (except for some birds and other charismatic taxonomic groups
17
William Crosse
Conservation International
that have been globally assessed at least twice). IUCN Red List updates for specific taxa usually take
place every 4-5 years.
To support the RLI there is a need for additional species level indicators that capture changing
situations at a finer scale of resolution. Monitoring upward and downward population trends for
threatened species will deliver temporal data on relative abundance that support the development and
further refinement of KBAs and the continual updating of the IUCN Red List. The development and
design of the trends database and strongholds concept (Emmett: In development) provides a useful
mechanism to collate and analyze changes in relative abundance of Critically Endangered, Endangered
and Vulnerable species (refer to section 7.2.1).
Methodology for measurement:
Percentage achievement can be determined by calculating the RLI for a region, country or Seascape
Area using the number of species in each Red List category for each complete assessment and the
number of species that change categories as a result of genuine status change. The categories
considered should be the five principal categories on the IUCN Red List: Extinct (EX), Extinct in the
Wild (EW), Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT) 1.
Species may be down-listed or up-listed due to a real change of conservation status, reasons of
taxonomic change or improved knowledge. Since we are most interested in real change in
conservation status, it is important to separate out the other changes. Butchart et al, (2004) describe
how this was done to calculate Red List Indices for birds2. Mutually exclusive codes were applied: (1)
recent genuine status change; (2) genuine status change since first assessment; (3) knowledge; (4)
criteria revision; and (5) taxonomy. The first two codes were used for relevant changes in calculating
the indices, and the last three codes were used for change not relevant in calculating the indices.
It is also important to list the number of species down listed from each category due to a real change in
conservation status. Otherwise, successes with a couple of species could be lost in a wider wave of
negative change. For example, if the percent change in the RLI for birds is –2.1 (see below for number
explanation) between complete assessments, the number of species up listed, resulting in the negative
change, may mask the difference in number of species down listed. It is important to actually track the
number of species in each category and list how many have been down listed due to a real change in
conservation status.
The RLI can be determined as follows:
1. For species that have been assessed in two consecutive assessments
a. Multiply the total numbers of species in each category for each assessment by the
corresponding category weight.
i. NT =1
ii. VU=2
iii. EN=3
iv. CR=4
v. EW=5
1
IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List categories and criteria: version 3.1 Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK: IUCN SSC.
2
Butchart op.cit.
18
William Crosse
Conservation International
b. Sum the five products to calculate a total score T for each assessment (Tti-1, Tti; where ti is
the year of the ith assessment).
2. For each category, determine the net number of genuine changes G between the two
assessments.
3. Subtract the value of weight category c for species s at time ti [Wc (ti,s)] from the value of
weight category c for species s at time ti-1 [Wc (ti-1,s)].
4. Multiply the difference in weight categories between assessments for species s times the
number of genuine changes Gs for category c. Where Gs =1 if change in category of species s
is genuine from ti-1 to ti , otherwise Gs =0.
5. Divide the product for each species by the total for the earlier assessment Tti
6. Calculate the total proportional change Pti by summing the quotient for all species.
7. Finally, the value of the index Iti is calculated by multiplying 1- Pti times the index for the
previous period Iti-1, where Iti-1 equals 100 for the first year of assessment.
Mathematically the formulas are:
Tti  Wc  N c (ti )
c
Pti  [(Wc (ti , s )  Wc (ti1 , s ) )  Gs ] / Tti1
s
I ti  I ( ti1 )  (1  Pti )
Where should this indicator be measured?
This assessment can be carried out from any office with Internet access and should evaluate all Red
Listed species in the Seascape or Marine Area that have been globally assessed more than once.
When should this indicator be measured?
Once each year, after the Red List is updated
Who should measure this indicator?
Most CBCs and Regional Programs have a person or team designated to do species work. They will
be best placed to monitor the Red List. Support can be provided by teams in Washington DC if
necessary.
* Above text derived from Conservation International (2004a): The Outcomes Monitoring Framework: detailed
indicator descriptions 2004.
19
William Crosse
Conservation International
7.1.2 Key Biodiversity areas are formally safeguarded: % of all Key Biodiversity Areas that are
managed with a binding contractual agreement & biodiversity conservation as a management
objective (Response).
Conservation Outcome: ‘Areas Protected’
Background:
Protecting areas is the most important and successful tactic for maintaining biodiversity and avoiding
species extinctions (Bruner et al. 2001) and the outcomes definition framework provides a sound
biological and ecological foundation for defining the location, size and spacing of marine managed
areas. Employing the bottom up, species driven approach to conservation planning, CI can strive
towards formally safeguarding identified KBAs with different levels of management intervention.
Through this means, conservation can effectively preserve biodiversity and the threatened, range
restricted or congregatory species contained in the boundaries (Eken, 2004). In addition, by protecting
important marine areas, to the extent possible, practitioners can adopt an ecosystem-based
management approach and preserve entire suites of species together with their habitats. Measuring
both the extent and effectiveness of protected areas is regarded as a useful indicator for meeting largescale biodiversity targets (Chape et al, 2005)
Marine reserves and formally controlled sites are regarded by many scientists, managers and policy
makers as a primary means of managing both fisheries and biodiversity (Sale et al, 2005). As a
conservation tool it has been seen to augment sizes and densities of exploited stocks as well as have an
indirect effect on plant-herbivore-predator interactions (Peterson & Estes, 2001). The benefits of
marine reserves have been observed through long-term studies (McClanahan & Arthur, 2001, Alcala
& Russ, 2005, Shears & Babcock, 2003) and target species have been seen to respond well to
protection with increases in fish abundance (Mosquera et al, 2000). Empirical studies by Halpern
(2003) found that the impact of marine reserves on species density, biomass, size and diversity were
considerably higher inside protected areas than unprotected areas. This was true for both overall
communities and each functional group within the ecosystem.
Historically the designation of marine managed areas has been largely opportunistic (Roberts et al,
2003) and there has often been little differentiation between the benefits of protected areas for
preserving biodiversity or managing fisheries to create maximum sustainable yields (Hastings &
Botsford, 2003). As previously discussed, building managed areas on the KBA model gives focus to
tackling these issues by giving the implementation of a protected area explicit conservation targets,
namely to preserve vulnerable and irreplaceable species and the habitats and biotic processes that
maintain them. Marine managed areas have often been characterized for target species that act as
proxies for measuring whole-community properties (Syms & Carr, 2001), yet this brings uncertainty
by assuming that indicator, keystone or umbrella species adequately reflect tight coupling with the
persistence of other species (threatened, range-restricted species). While using surrogate focal species
may serve as a valuable means to measure community composition at the site level, they should not
trigger KBAs unless they themselves are regarded as irreplaceable or vulnerable species through the
outcomes definition process.
Ideally managed areas, including marine reserves, should span across the whole spatial spectrum of
the KBA. Naturally this is not always feasible, particularly in developing countries where social and
economic problems can often compete with conservation goals. Nevertheless the ecological and
20
William Crosse
Conservation International
biological criteria underpinning priority KBAs involves identifying population levels that meet KBA
criteria and thresholds as well as mapping out ranges of the species of interest. Once these attributes
are classified through iterative KBA refinement, the size and spacing of protected areas should aim to
capture target features.
A number of issues do still need tackling when applying marine management areas for species-specific
conservation. At the outset, ranges of marine species rarely remain static and many change with
developmental stages, seasons and ecological succession (Sobel & Dahlgren, 2004). The delineation of
stationary KBAs may therefore not be an effective strategy for protection of some species, in
particular animals that are not sorely dependent on substrate features. The widespread and dynamic
nature of the open/epipelagic zone poses problems when applying the KBA methodology and marine
managed areas to species characterized by criteria necessary for site conservation action. Due to the
transitory nature of areas such as large-scale gyres for tuna or seabird feeding aggregations it is often
complicated to administer sustainable protected status (Brooks: unpublished). Marine managed areas
are most appropriate for species that are relatively sedentary or have specific sites for life history
processes. They seem less suitable for migratory species, for instance mackerel, tuna and billfish
(Norse et al, 2005).
Nonetheless, in recent years scientists and policy makers have begun to consider safeguarding open
sea systems. Protecting epipelagic species and habitats not associated with fixed benthic features
requires recognizing the shift in positions on short time scales as well as the migratory essence of
some target species. With this in mind, applying the KBA and protected area model to these realms
should consider dynamic boundaries in design and implementation. Because fully protecting areas
large enough to account for shifting attributes may not be economically and politically feasible,
creative thinking employing flexible boundaries that alter with changing oceanic conditions may be
effective in protecting shifting biotic components as they vary inter-annually, seasonally and even
daily (Hooker & Gerber, 2004). Successful implementation of these plans will involve learning from
the wealth of knowledge fishermen have gained through years of observation. Additional attention
must also be given to developing more sophisticated tagging and satellite observations to better
understand shifting oceanographic regimes and their influence on biodiversity elements.
Methodology for measurement:
Satellite imaging is a tool often used to reflect geological scale processes; specifically the
identification of geomorphological features (e.g. reef flat, reef crest, barrier reef, deep reef) and
properties that allow the observer to distinguish between different reef zones (Green et al, 2000,
Mumby et al, 2003). Satellite platforms, particularly the Landsat Multispectral Scanner (MSS),
Thematic Mapper (TM) and the Satellite Pour l’Observation de la Terre (SPOT XS), are often
employed as means to describe ‘in situ’ sampling locations.
Once KBAs have been formally identified through detailed species assessments, boundaries can be
described using satellite image technology. Furthermore remote sensing instruments are useful
planning tools that allow management boundaries to be demarcated within KBAs. By therefore
overlaying spatial maps of KBAs and management boundaries using generated maps such as those
from the World Database on Protected Areas, a baseline can be formed on the following: a) percentage
of sites protected and unprotected; b) spatial extent of protected sites; c) area protected as core zones;
and d) area protected as multiple-use zones (Conservation International, 2004a). In establishing this
21
William Crosse
Conservation International
baseline, CI can quantifiably measure percentage changes, whether though the creation of further
protected zones or the expansion of existing ones. Any KBA with some form of protection status
should be counted, even if less than 100% is under protection. The type of protection (nationally
protected, indigenous reserve, conservation concession, etc) should also be noted, as well as the area
within the KBA associated with the protection status (Conservation International, 2004a).
Where should this indicator be measured?
The status of management areas for all Key Biodiversity Areas should be assessed.
When should this indicator be measured?
Overlaying protected/management area maps with maps of Key Biodiversity Areas should be
undertaken annually
Who should measure this indicator?
CBC regional staff trained in GIS and remote sensing imagery should carry out this form of work.
Support, if needed, should be available from Conservation Synthesis in Washington DC.
7.1.3 Ecosystem Integrity is maintained at safeguarded Key Biodiversity Areas: Change in
habitat distribution & ecosystem composition and structure within Key Biodiversity Areas
Conservation Outcome: ‘Areas Protected’
Background:
Analogous to the terrestrial system there is a need to monitor the key habitats and ecological functions
supporting species that trigger the delineation of KBAs. Quantity and quality of habitat is among the
indicators most highly correlated with the ability of species to persist at any site. Habitat space and
microhabitat diversity have been suggested to be strong predictors of species richness and abundance
(Balasubramanian, 2004). Hence, if habitat quality, complexity and ecosystem processes remain
established, then extinction of cryptic, habitat responding species is unlikely (Edgar & Garske, 2005).
Whilst the objectives of conservation tactics should be defined by their ability to safeguard globally
important species, site conservation targets should consider preserving populations of target species
that either act as a proxy for measuring community properties, or are themselves primary targets for
protection (Syms & Carr, 2001). These species are most notably the key habitat forming and
engineering species that play disproportionate roles in sustaining the function and viability of the
ecosystem. These ecosystem features are usually termed as focal, architectural, keystone or indicator
species and represent trackable biotic components that collectively characterize the biological
condition of the system (Davis, 2005). Many of these attributes are also seen as sensitive to biological
stress and increase or decrease predictably as direct and indirect human influences magnify in severity
(Jameson et al, 2001).
An ecosystem-based approach to monitoring long-term dynamics of biotic ecosystem components is a
direct way to determine temporal and spatial status as well as trends in ecosystem composition and
structure. These components are usually best tracked by also adopting a species approach and
monitoring population trends in habitat-forming and engineering species that are easy to identify,
measure, and analyze. However the selected measurable components must be able to assess finer scale
biological signals caused by stress imposed by associated human induced pressures. Moreover if such
22
William Crosse
Conservation International
population indices have the ability to discriminate between human-induced changes and natural spatial
and temporal variation, monitoring practitioners can establish the limits of normal variation and
ultimately generate outputs that provide early warning diagnosis information for systems experiencing
abnormal conditions and trophic dysfunction effects (Davis, 2005).
Tracking responsive changes in key habitat forming and engineering species that play significant roles
in maintaining ecological functions should be afforded high priority as it concurs well with CI’s
emphasis on protecting globally threatened species. These like many target species, rely heavily on the
persistence or absence of a number of functionally important animals and plants that play critical roles
in maintaining tight coupling between trophic levels through processes such as predation, herbivory
and habitat formation. Thus by tracking the habitats and ecosystem processes that protect and maintain
threatened and endemic species, and managing adaptively using this information to reduce threats,
extinction is less likely (Edgar & Garske, 2005). Likewise, this ecological monitoring indicator aligns
well with CI’s ‘sites protected’ conservation outcome. While core indicator .2 (section 7.1.2) measures
the number of KBAs with protected status, its non-diagnostic nature does not confidently measure
whether protection status really is safeguarding the species and habitats within the protected KBAs.
The success or failure to protect sites should not be evaluated unless empirical population data of focal
species is observed to be increasing or declining. Implementation of this diagnostic indicator delivers
the intrinsic information necessary to validate whether biodiversity components do indeed improve
when protection interventions are implemented successfully and strategically.
Case Study (1): North American temperate kelp forest systems
The strength of ecological relationships between habitat forming and habitat engineering species in
kelp forests of the North Pacific and North Atlantic has been studied by a number of researchers in
recent years (Steneck et al 2002, 2004., Graham 2004., Estes & Duggins 1995). It has been found that
consumer animals structure kelp forest interactions via primary drivers; these are (1) herbivory by sea
urchins (2) carnivory from predators of sea urchins, and (3) the thinning by storms and competitors
(Steneck et al., 2002). Historical over-fishing of vertebrate apex predators has triggered herbivore
(most notably sea urchins) population increases leading to widespread kelp deforestation. As kelp
forests are seen as the structurally complex and highly productive components of rocky temperate
systems, their mass deforestation has had lasting impacts on the habitat responding species that depend
on kelp for refuge and food resources.
Studies by Steneck et al (2004) in the North Atlantic’s Gulf of Maine used archaeological, ecological
and fisheries data to identify alternative states in the trophic structure of kelp forests. Phase regimes
moved from a system characterized and controlled by apex Atlantic Cod and Haddock predators, to a
system dominated by herbivorous sea urchins between the 1970’s and 1990’s. More recently a regime
dominated by new apex predators, such as large crabs, has developed and they have overtaken the role
historically dominated by now over-fished Atlantic Cod and Haddock. Each phase change has resulted
from fisheries-induced ‘trophic-level dysfunction,’ in which populations of functionally important
species at higher trophic levels have fallen below densities necessary to limit prey populations at lower
trophic levels. These phase shifts have occurred rapidly and in line with the increasing intensity of
fishing. The study has evidently outlined that the functional loss of a trophic level causes a cascading
effect that changes the structure of the ecosystem and the balance of the community in question.
Severe trophic effects from fishing activity have also been evident in more diverse and complex
23
William Crosse
Conservation International
tropical systems where higher functional redundancy strengthens resiliency to cascading effects
(Jackson et al, 2001).
Case Study (2): Mangrove forests, Belize Barrier Reef
From a tropical viewpoint, Mumby et al (2003) investigated the functional role and importance of
mangrove forests in maintaining target species. The study suggests that mangroves provide a vital
intermediate stage between sea-grass and patch reefs for important herbivorous fish, including Scarus
guacamaia; a species listed now listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. Mangrove rich areas were
compared to mangrove-scarce reef systems in the Belize Atolls. The results demonstrated that
mangroves act as critical nursery grounds for herbivorous fish and alleviate a predatory bottleneck in
early life stages. In the presence of mangroves, the biomass of herbivores is significantly enhanced on
patch reefs, shallow fore-reefs and Montastraea reefs; in deforested areas biomass is reduced. As
reductions in herbivory is known to decrease the resilience of coral reefs to algal overgrowth, such a
study is important in outlining the role of key habitats in maintaining connectivity and ecosystem
function as well as addressing the threats that disrupt them.
Index of Ecological Integrity:
Case study 1 outlines how a suite of biotic components that are quantitatively measured, can
collectively profile varying conditions in the ecosystem. The case study was based on long-term,
easily interpretable monitoring data that observed species-habitat relationships and trophic interactions
between prominent sessile epibenthos species, benthic invertebrates and fish species of significant
ecological and commercial importance. Because data collection was both indicative and detailed,
analysis of each population parameter suggested patterns to changing ecological and biological
condition. With this in mind the potential to incorporate data into multi-metric indices is evident and
could serve as an efficient way to measure and rank different gradients of ecosystem integrity,
particularly in line with different human activity and conservation investment gradient values. This
practical monitoring concept ties in well with the Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII) proposed by
Scholes & Biggs (2005). The BII expresses the overall state of biodiversity in a sensitive, scientifically
sound and expressive manner by synthesizing land use, ecosystem extent, species richness and
population abundance data of a geographical region and tracks values that are sensitive to important
factors influencing biodiversity status (Scholes & Biggs, 2005).
Semmens et al (2000) proposed using long-term accumulated data to develop multi-site and multispecies trends throughout the Florida Keys. Similarly, a biophysical index proposal to track biotic
integrity in coral reef systems was recently put forward by Jameson et al (2001). Development of the
multi-metric index of biotic integrity (IBI) encompasses biological features that are sensitive to all
forms of human influence and thus, either individually or combined, give an understanding of the
tolerance and susceptibility of coral reef taxa to contamination effects, habitat destruction and the
direct and indirect effects of fishing. The research strategy serves as a useful monitoring tool
particularly because it presents the idea of condensing multiple data sets into an easily interpreted and
trackable format. We propose a more globally demonstrative measurable index be developed. While
the IBI includes a range of biotic attributes that are difficult to measure and analyze, there is potential
to adopt the same multi-metric index model to abbreviate, integrate and ultimately systematize
abundance and distribution population data of habitat forming and engineering species as a single
numerical value that disseminates changing levels of ecosystem integrity. A similar model proposed
by Davis (2005) is more analogous to the concept in discussion. The ‘vital signs’ monitoring program
24
William Crosse
Conservation International
selected parameters of species of plants, marine invertebrates, fish, birds, mammals and measures of
community structure (indicator was applied to Californian temperate system). Population indices, most
notably abundance and distribution patterns, as well as environmental parameters were identified as
the ecosystem’s vital signs. Collectively these attributes allowed monitoring to predict future
conditions and provide early warning for the onset of impending stress.
With both models in mind it seems highly valuable to develop a simplistic index model that can
improve the capability of adopting an ecosystem integrity measure across the large spatial scales
needed to measure regional and global biodiversity trends. While the potential is there, establishment
and implementation requires significant development in other areas.
These are:
1) Understanding of regional system dynamics:
The biological information gathered and integrated into an index will vary between regions
and thus sound ecological insight of a region’s biological and ecological characteristics is
needed for the model to have regional relevance. Familiarities with the species of most
functional importance as well as the magnitude of their roles within the system are pieces
of information that are initially necessary in order to identify targets for measurement.
Selecting an array of taxa that represent the important keystone, indicator and umbrella
species of the study region is necessary before any sampling strategy can be devised.
2) Description of desired target conditions:
An understanding of conditions before the onset of human activity is required so that
targets and quantifiable endpoints for measurement can be set.
3) Baseline condition prior to intervention:
Establishment of regional baseline conditions to act as a reference point from which to
measure and evaluate the divergence of ecological integrity from the time management
action was implemented or human activity became evident.
4) Establishment of standardized criteria, classification and ranking systems:
The creation of a robust classification and ranking system for biotic variables will be a
means by which a regional and globally representative index can track changes in the
condition of critical ecosystem factors that support vulnerable and irreplaceable marine
populations. Similarly a criteria classification system for categorization of threat and
conservation action also needs to be established. The IUCN Red List authority files for
threat and action are possible frameworks that can be employed.
5) Identify thresholds for index values:
Determining multiple states through quantitative thresholds that grade and classify
biophysical, threat and conservation conditions need development. Identifying critical
thresholds for this index will allow values to be used as targets for management
interventions. This will require identifying subdivisions of regions with similar biological
and ecological characteristics and levels of human disturbance. Grouping regions that are
distinctively similar based on bio-geographic information and biological and ecological
25
William Crosse
Conservation International
data will allow the uniform measurement of ecological integrity across the spatial scales of
the specific regional unit under consideration (Jameson et al, 2001).
Notes – Ecological Integrity:
The above only summarizes a sub-section of some of the many quantifiable attributes that can
collectively measure ecological integrity. Along with the described population parameters, other
measurements can be integrated into the index so to track changes in ecosystem intactness. Firstly,
basic environmental indices including temperature, turbidity and other physical-chemical
characteristics can represent vital components of the ecosystem integrity index. Secondly the now
well-established Marine Trophic Index (Pauly & Watson, 2005) serves as a highly useful indicator due
to its simplistic approach in summarizing a variety of complex processes into a single index. Both
these indicators are outlined in more detail in the additional indicators section of this document (refer
to sections 7.2.3 & 7.2.4).
Existing gaps and inconsistencies in long-term population trend information as well as the complex
and unpredictable dynamics associated with key habitat forming and engineering species create
difficulties when attempting to identify species population levels that constitute condition thresholds
of ecological integrity. Attempting to formulate an aggregated index of ecological intactness is
therefore a complex process. Notwithstanding the Red List Index and continued development of the
marine trophic index, past aggregate indices have lacked sufficient scientific basis to be of use as
decision-making management tools.
To assess trends in condition, it is imperative to have data across a wide area, over several years and
for many species (Semmens et al, 2000). Consistent long-term population trend data of key species
does exist in some locations and a meta-analysis of this information presents a good opportunity to
articulate the importance of ongoing monitoring for increasing knowledge of ecosystem dynamics
(e.g. natural and human induced variability and functional relationships between species). Undertaking
sensitivity analyses on reliable regional population information can help frame questions related to
devising threshold values and an aggregate index of ecological intactness. The design of a globally
applicable mechanism that can consolidate multiple data sets into a simplistic but scientifically sound
value can be applied to fit biological and geographical characteristics of areas where complex
ecological processes are well understood through ongoing trend data. This easily interpretable multispecies indicator will vary in accordance with population changes in key ecological components and
thus fits well with the outcomes definition and monitoring framework by accounting for the habitats
and ecological processes that maintain the viability of target species.
The Marine Management Area Science Initiative (MMAS) can serve as an experimental testing
platform to advance understanding of sensitivities in species population dynamics. These outputs need
to be documented and critically assessed if future findings are to be used as tools to better inform
conservation and management application. To help inform future studies we propose undertaking a
global meta-data analysis using well sustained existing time series data collected from both temperate
and tropical sites. The importance of reliable and robust monitoring data needs to be emphasized and
analysis of selected historical data sets can facilitate further research into how rigorous population
information of biodiversity components can feed modeling systems that will help progress
understanding of changing values in ecological integrity.
26
William Crosse
Conservation International
Methodology for measurement:
The scale of taxonomic resolution and scientific rigor at which to monitor is an important matter to
address before designing a sampling strategy. This requires recognizing the trade-offs between
taxonomic and scientific analysis and the cost and resources needed to collect data of such detail. Field
surveys can vary from broad to fine scales, with manta tow techniques used to assess habitat cover,
bleaching effects and reef aesthetics across large areas in rapid time and quadrat sampling to identify
and measure spatially stratified species values with precision (Hill & Wilkinson, 2004). While a
chosen methodology must remain cost-effective to measure, a more detailed form of change detection
could be considered if able to differentiate between the noise of natural variation and the signal
associated with sensitive changes induced by human pressure. The costs and benefits of a variety of
methods for gathering indicator data must be weighed up. Outcomes monitoring indicators aim to
measure status and trends across large spatial scales within large management units (seascapes). The
feasibility of therefore collecting explicit and scientifically thorough data in every KBA would be both
challenging and expensive to undertake. Measuring many of the biological indices recommended by
Jameson et al (2001), while highly valuable at the local level, would prove too complex to promote as
standard monitoring indicators across broad spatial scales. The frequent bioaccumulation analysis of
contaminant levels in individuals or the measurement of biological processes such as
settlement/recruitment rates would be difficult to undertake in areas limited in capacity and technical
expertise. Such monitoring protocols are more suited to programs with the objective of exclusively
measuring the impact of implemented management areas (Marine Management Area Science
initiative).
As recommended by Edgar & Garske (2005), species population data provides the most appropriate
indicator for tracking biodiversity features. The idea of surveying species is better understood by less
scientifically conscious people than sampling ecological and biological processes or changes in a
species’ physiological attributes. Moreover, by monitoring a selection of species, these more explicit
attributes of biodiversity are captured (Edgar & Garske, 2005). While data analysis will require a
higher level of skill, collecting abundance and distribution species data to observe changes in
community composition and structure can be taught to non-scientific audiences without lengthy prior
explanation. Thus by making use of community members, local stakeholders and recreational divers
supported by scientific knowledge, a standardized monitoring methodology can be implemented at
more sampling stations within KBAs and across wider spatial scales, even in areas limited in scientific
capability.
Nevertheless, even using population information requires identifying a level of taxonomic resolution
for data collection. The Reef Check monitoring protocol (Hodgson et al, 2000) is a standardized
monitoring strategy that illustrates global and regional long-term trends. Measurement is carried out
over large scales by remaining generic and limiting indices to only a minor subset of species collected
at the life form level. Reef Check’s simplistic and subjective nature only describes easily identifiable,
charismatic and commercially important species and does not offer monitoring of sensitive variations,
trophic cascading diagnosis in loss of functional redundancy or the breakdown of ecosystem integrity.
It is consequently of limited use as an early warning mechanism. Reef Check’s coarse nature does
have the great advantage of allowing monitoring to be maintained over the long term without losing
capacity and funding within the first couple of years of activation. With minimal reliance on resources
the methodology can be implemented at numerous sites so by increasing standardized data flow and
27
William Crosse
Conservation International
giving information of population trends over large spatial scales. This has been particularly effective in
the Philippines where it is only really feasible to implement small community sustainable managed
areas (Walmsley & White, 2003). While collaboration with the Reef Check protocol would help scale
up field monitoring across broad scales, further thinking on the components monitored over time needs
addressing as well as the level of resolution of sampling. Currently its opportunistic approach to
selecting regional indicators does not meet the objectives of habitat monitoring within the outcomes
monitoring framework.
Whilst monitoring at the functional group level of detail saves time and technical resources, clearly
assessing habitat and species changes using intuitive species-specific analysis aligns better with the
objectives of conservation outcomes. First and foremost, the more informative nature of species
taxonomic information allows monitoring practitioners to identify trends in the most important
keystone and architectural species thus allowing analysis to better correlate ecosystem degradation
such as phase transition shifts to direct and indirect human activity effects. Without discriminating
between species and solely measuring functional groups, monitoring programs will not recognize the
loss of vital species within each functional guild or trophic level. As a result the decline and absence of
key predators, grazers or habitat forming species will not be detected until dramatic regime shift
patterns become visibly apparent. By that time intervention may have little power in reversing the
situation. Monitoring at the species level will examine the relationship between taxonomic and
functional redundancy and thus the extent of ecological redundancy within the system of concern. This
finer scale of analysis not only enables practitioners to identify impending population declines of key
species but it also provides confidence in deducing which species’ and functional groups are most
vulnerable to threats and what species and levels of diversity are needed to maintain ecosystem
function (Micheli & Halpern, 2005).
More synonymous with this indicator is the Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) that
monitors at the species level and quantitatively records benthic, fish and invertebrate species that
collectively address changes in ecosystem condition. While AGRRA has been designed specifically to
suit the biotic characteristics of the Western Atlantic (Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and Brazil), its
format seems adaptable enough to be scaled up and applied across other tropical regions. Initially the
program protocols were not intended to distinguish between cause and effect reef condition, only
simply designed to develop hypothesizes on trends in coral reef condition. Because it complements
quadrat with transect techniques in a systematic manner, it can be particularly precise in data
collection and thus serves as a useful high resolution method for measuring the critical habitat forming
and engineering components that support the viability of ecosystems and target species (Lang, 2003).
Selectively monitoring at the species level, as AGRRA does, also allies well with conservation
outcomes in that the projected sampling strategy enables data on globally threatened species within
KBAs to also be gathered in a continual manner. A well-designed survey protocol can integrate
conservation target species and directly deliver trend information necessary to detect changes at the
species level, whether tracking abundance values through the trends database or conservation status
via the Red List Index. Capturing relative/absolute abundance and distribution point locality
information on target species also delivers vital data that can support the refinement of KBA
boundaries and adaptive management of protected area boundaries.
28
William Crosse
Conservation International
Additionally, further targets of special interest can include the measurement of invasive (non-native)
species, species of commercial importance (ecosystem services) and wide ranging/corridor utilizing
species. For example, the ongoing species-level monitoring program at the California Channel Islands
for example has delivered valuable information to help control and eliminate invasive alien species
most notably Undaria pinnatifida and Caulerpa taxifolia (Davis, 2004). Addressing species, site and
corridor conservation targets within this single indicator emphasizes its value in accomplishing many
of the objectives associated with the design of the marine outcomes monitoring framework.
A major advantage of measuring species patterns is the transparent, low cost/high information nature
that can, through standardization, be promoted at a local, national, regional and global level. The
development of a standardized but adaptable monitoring tool will allow individual regions and nations
to construct specific species population indices that are analogous across regions while at the same
time appropriate to their particular ecological and biological characteristics. Thus the design of a
sampling strategy for monitoring critical marine habitat and engineering biological components should
be approached with a biome neutral mind-set. This is very necessary if monitoring programs are to
contribute to the spatial and temporal measurement of regional and global biodiversity trends.
Keeping in mind some of the logistical complications and limitations in applying some survey
techniques to specific marine regions (deep sea systems) it is important to emphasize some common
sampling aspects that should be applied when measuring the composition and structure of all marine
ecosystems. These are:
1) Identify selected taxa and environmental features for measurement:
As a first step it is important to identify the various critical species and habitat types found
within KBAs. Sound taxonomic analysis is often essential in driving effective ecological
management (Knowlton, 2001). The recommendation of conservation outcome indicators for
the Galapagos Marine Reserve used existing knowledge to recognize the threatened species,
major biotic habitat types, keystone and wide ranging species that need monitoring to assess
species, site and corridor conservation outcomes (Edgar & Garske, 2005). In some cases
baseline biological and ecological information may not be available and detailed taxonomic
inventory assessments will be necessary (Davis, 2005). Start up rapid assessment approaches
can identify selected taxa for use as outcomes monitoring indicators at the species, site and
corridor ecological scale. The physical characteristics of sites, environmental conditions and
levels of socio-economic as well as existing conservation impact can also be evaluated. This
approach delivers site based baseline information needed to quantify changing conditions over
time.
2) Representative sampling in the area of interest:
In designing a field sampling strategy, monitoring practitioners should use baseline assessment
information to classify sites with respect to environmental conditions and levels of human
influence and conservation intervention (e.g. protected status). While sampling stations should
systematically be implemented across entire KBA scales, sites should equally represent
controlled (e.g. managed area) and un-controlled areas (e.g. fishing grounds). Furthermore if
sites are selected across a linear gradient of condition (from intact to degraded) it allows for
valid future comparisons and better correlative analysis of changing trends in biotic
components.
29
William Crosse
Conservation International
3) Random or fixed survey sites:
Although dependent on environmental conditions and logistical considerations, sites that
characterize major habitats and levels of socio-economic condition within a KBA should be
valued as units and resurveyed over time. Stratified sampling stations within these sites can
either be fixed locations or surveyed using random deployment procedures. While both have
advantages, random sampling would seem more practical for monitoring across large KBA
spatial scales. Fixed surveys are regarded as more appropriate than re-randomized surveys
(within fixed sites) when interested in differences in temporal changes among sites. Although
we are interested in evaluating effectiveness of conservation through site comparisons,
permanent stations may be too logistically difficult with limited resources and capacity.
Random surveys, if unbiased in selection and repeatedly representative of the site, can
effectively allow changes in spatial variation over time to be observed across KBA locations.
Tracking trends in habitat distribution and community composition indices is a greater
objective of this indicator than testing management effectiveness through site comparisons.
4) Quality control and training:
While human error can never be eliminated entirely from field sampling techniques, it can be
reduced through regular training, testing and knowledge reviews of survey personnel.
Employing a standardized sampling framework across all KBAs also aims to address
observational variance and bias associated with such approaches. This aims to be achieved by
maintaining consistency on a number of principles, in particular maximum time spent
sampling, depth contours, total area surveyed, methodologies and equipment applied and
variables targeted for data collection. Nonetheless, because the design of the proposed
sampling strategy aims to be globally applicable, its transparent, generic and adaptable nature
(regionally and biologically) will mean bias in data collection and analysis is evident. While
this may hinder confidence in comparing between sites, such human error is not likely to be
statistically significant enough to influence broad scale status measurements or comparative
regional analyses.
Repeatedly measuring habitat distribution and ecosystem community composition can be done using a
number of different sampling techniques, regardless of objectives and level of resolution requirement.
In tropical systems, many survey protocols have been built from designs developed by English et al
(1997) that are comparable and consistent in data collection. The GCRMN for example, used English
et al survey recommendations as a platform to design a protocol that overlaps community,
management and research levels of monitoring. The methodology is both analogous and compatible
with other monitoring designs including AGRRA and Reef Check whose foundations are based on
similar design principles. Whereas levels of survey detail differ between monitoring programs, having
standard protocol attributes allows data outputs from different strategies to be pulled together to
measure trends over larger spatial scales.
In designing a methodology to suit a globally standardized and generic outcomes indicator, the survey
tools implemented must be applicable across marine ecosystems and the ranges of species diversity. If
common sampling principles are complied across all KBAs, collected information can be relatively
uniform regardless of the tools and technology used for observation and recording (e.g. diver
observation, photo or video and remotely operated vehicles).
30
William Crosse
Conservation International
Accounting for different biological or geographical characteristics, a globally applicable survey
approach can be designed by complementing belt transects that measure fish and invertebrate indices
with quadrats that capture benthic community footprints, in particular abundance and distribution data
of the key habitat forming/architectural species (such as hard corals, soft corals and macro-algal
species).
 Underwater visual census: Fish and invertebrate belt transects can be employed to survey
invertebrates and fish communities. The straightforward design means it can be performed by
personnel with limited previous field sampling experience, even if information is collected at a species
level of taxonomic resolution (prior species identification training is essential). The method aims to
document abundance and community composition of key fish and invertebrate species along transects
usually 25 meters in length. At coastal sites, surveys should be conducted along transects laid down at
depths between 3-10 meters parallel to the reef and coastline. Observers should initially set down the
25m transect line before swimming back over it to record observations. One recorder should swim at a
steady pace and record key fish species observed 2 meters either side of the transect line (100m² in
area). A second observer should follow behind recording selected invertebrate species (in particular
Diadema, key grazing invertebrates) using a similar survey approach but a more narrow belt limited to
25cm to 1m either side of the transect line. A smaller sampling range is necessary due to the less
conspicuous nature of invertebrate in relation to mobile fish species.
 Habitat composition census: Quantitatively measuring biotic communities with the necessary
precision to observe changes in abundance and distribution footprints requires using belt quadrats. The
method has proved very popular globally as it combines the benefits of quantitative quadrat surveying
with increased sampling area (Hill & Wilkinson, 2004). Point sampling can be carried out over the
same spatial area as fish and invertebrate measurements using the pre-set transect as a guidance tool
for replication. Quadrat positions should be randomly chosen within every 5m interval along the
transect. While appropriate quadrat size is dependent upon the size and spatial abundance of the
organism being measured, due to the transparency of this indicator we recommend 1m² quadrats to
visually estimate percent cover values of key habitat forming benthic species. Reasonable accuracy on
measures of percent cover, species diversity, relative abundance, density and size can be obtained if
adequate prior training is given to help counteract inevitable observer bias. Within each quadrat the
observer should quantitatively estimate the percentage cover of the various benthic communities
present. More accuracy can be achieved by sub dividing quadrats into 10 x 10cm smaller squares (1
square = 1% cover).
Using the above techniques the following should also be recorded:
1) Logistical information – date, time of survey, activity in close proximity, site code,
survey depth profile, visibility.
2) Geological structure – categorization of geomorphological structures at sites should be
noted (e.g. spur & groove, reef flat, lagoon, patch reef). Shallow water physical
boundaries can be derived by remote sensing platforms and complementary
classification schemes. Satellite instruments, particularly the Landsat Multispectral
Scanner (MSS), the Thematic Mapper and 7, are touted as effective tools for aiding
sampling decision-making. Classification schemes now not only exist, but have also
31
William Crosse
Conservation International
been tested and validated with appropriate ground-truthing techniques. Reef zones in
coastal systems can be easily identified due to shallow water depths and their
protruding and prominent physical nature.
3) Abiotic components – percent cover values of sand, rubble, hard bottom, fine
sediments and other substrate types should be recorded within quadrats.
4) Biotic footprint – percent cover of benthic species (macro-algae, hard corals, soft
corals, algae, sponges) within quadrats. Dead coral, disease and coral bleaching
information should be documented if time and expertise is available.
5) Additional species - Other priority target species need to be measured through
sampling. These notably include vulnerable or irreplaceable species (identified through
KBA criteria), invasive and migratory species. These should be integrated into
sampling objectives and training packages before monitoring begins.
Notes: Integrated species level field monitoring strategy
Monitoring protocols are designed to measure parameters that meet specific organizational objectives.
Strategies vary in levels of resolution; while some are built to measure changes in biodiversity
elements (threatened species) and some are employed to specifically monitor species of social, cultural
or economic importance or high threat (invasive species e.g. Crown of Thorns Starfish). Opposing
values that often formulate monitoring initiatives greatly hinders the integration of successful survey
practices applied on the ground. By not being able to overlap existing and new strategies we limit our
ability to monitor systematically and uniformly across large spatial scales.
A species level approach to field surveying offers an adaptable monitoring model that can incorporate
many biological considerations necessary to meet the objectives of different organizations. While the
‘spine’ of the methodology needs to remain standardized, individual survey initiatives can add and
remove species indicators so their targets are measured. Monitoring strategies can also choose how
many parameters are measured based on available technical expertise and resources at their disposal.
Through effective partnership building and the creation of ways to combine and share generated data,
different programs can meet their objectives while at the same time help other organizations by
collecting information they require. This will vastly improve the both the temporal and spatial scales at
which we monitor.
Undertaking a global marine field monitoring workshop can serve as a great catalyst for the
publication of an integrated monitoring manual. By presenting a range of survey layers, practitioners
can devise plans based on the purpose of measurement and data analysis and the level of capacity
available for monitoring. CI should begin building strong monitoring networks, above all with already
well-established efforts such as Reef Check, Reef, GCRMN, AGRRA and the Caribbean Coastal
Marine Productivity Program (CARICOMP).
Where should this indicator be measured?
The habitat distribution and community composition of all KBAs should be monitored and sites
should be selected to represent different gradients of conservation intervention (controlled vs.
uncontrolled sites) and human influence (pristine vs. degraded areas) so that comparative quantitative
analysis can be carried out from information outputs.
32
William Crosse
Conservation International
A fundamental decision is whether to survey across entire KBAs or whether to estimate habitat
distribution and community composition by extrapolating to surrounding areas beyond sampling
stations using multivariate analysis techniques. Given resource limitations it is more feasible to
extrapolate between sites to estimate ecological assemblages that are representative across KBAs. A
study by McField et al (2001) used multivariate analysis programs to assess community structure
across the Belize Barrier Reef system. Using the Bray-Curtis similarly matrix, underlying similarities
and differences in biological communities between impacted and non-impacted sites were identified
across the large spatial scale of the ecosystem.
Similarly, cluster analysis programs, notably PRIMER (Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological
Research) and CAP/PERMANOVA software can be used to analyze species/sample abundance and
distribution matrices. These packages help clarify multivariate relationships between species patterns
and environmental, physical-chemical and human induced impacts. Multivariate analysis that
descriptively resolves macro-organism assemblages and associated substrata provides a common
habitat classification currency for forming habitat maps helpful for understanding large-scale habitat
distribution and ecosystem structure trends over time (Mumby & Harborne, 1999). Spatial expression
of biological information is a powerful way to generate better understanding and greater awareness in
large-scale monitoring initiatives.


For further information please refer to: http://primer-e.com/
Or http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~mja/Programs.htm
When should this indicator be measured?
There is a trade-off between the frequency of monitoring and the number of locations to monitor. In
attempting to represent large areas varying in threat and conservation levels (as KBAs will be in some
cases), an array of monitoring locations will be necessary. To answer specific management questions
quarterly surveys may be required, but to simply observe change in general ecosystem integrity trends,
monitoring surveys need only to be carried out every year or at least every second year.
7.1.4 Connectivity allows natural biotic interactions to be maintained: Change in relative/absolute
abundance & distribution patterns of migratory/corridor-utilizing species.
Conservation Outcome: ‘Corridors Consolidated’
Background:
It is generally accepted that the definition of a marine corridor remains questionable and as a result the
process of managing and protecting biodiversity corridors using conservation and management tools is
complex (refer to section 5.3). Deciding on the number, size and location of protected areas for
example, depends on relationships between the spatial and temporal scales of physical processes and
the characteristics of species, populations, communities and ecosystems (Carr et al, 2003). To
maintain connectivity between KBAs, conservation efforts must capture the species and ecological
processes that occur in marine corridors. In doing this, biodiversity conservation corridors will
conserve globally threatened, endemic, congregating and further target species that cannot be
protected at the site scale.
33
William Crosse
Conservation International
Accounting for our limited understanding of large-scale marine processes, the ‘consolidation’ of
marine corridors should not be gauged a success unless population numbers of migratory/corridor
utilizing species are stable or increasing (Edgar & Garske, 2005). These are predominantly species that
do not exclusively rely on a single habitat type, but instead spend a large amount of time migrating in
the pelagic realm between habitats that offer resources and support during life history processes such
as feeding, nesting and breeding. As recommended by Edgar & Garske (2005), we propose a species
level indicator that directly measures population information of regionally specific wide ranging
species in order to assess the effectiveness of implementing biodiversity conservation corridors to
confront threats occurring in matrices surrounding KBAs.
This indicator ties in well with objectives and existing initiatives within the Sulu-Sulawesi and ETPS
seascape. The Philippine’s BINU (Biodiversity Indicators for National Use) report on coastal and
marine ecosystems identified Turtles and Whale Sharks as two migratory species that must be given
priority for further work. The life history of Whale Sharks (Rhincodon typus) is poorly understood in
the region and the need to implement monitoring systems to capture baseline information on the
natural spatial and temporal variation of populations as well as their behavior and movement patterns
and susceptibility to tourism and fishing pressure is paramount. Launching this indicator serves as a
useful mechanism to collect time-series records so critical to the creation of further species
conservation and management activities. As part of the Walton Grant initiative in ETPS, the
identification and baseline information of corridor utilizing species is a key deliverable. In Coiba
National Park for example, the scientific research, legislation and management of turtle and shark
species was outlined as an important component at the Seascape Workshop held in Washington DC in
August, 2005.
Methodology for measurement:
Ongoing monitoring of corridor utilizing species can be undertaken using the cost-effective measure of
recording opportunistic sightings into an organized index. As most species are conspicuous and easily
identifiable, sighting information (species, numbers, point locality) by fishermen, divers and marine
park staff should be logged and entered into a consolidating database controlled by a central scientific
body located in the region. While this may be regarded as a makeshift tactic, it remains the most
effective form of measurement and data collection if available capacity limits the ability to
systematically monitor population indices of target species.
If research and scientific resources are present nevertheless, more precise sampling can be employed
using systematic field sampling approaches. Frequently monitoring species abundance patterns at life
history bottleneck sites would generate systematic and valid time series information allowing
observers to more actively gauge whether abundance levels decrease or increase over time. A notable
example includes studies of Humpback whales migrating along the North Pacific at life history
bottlenecks since 1991 (Calambokidis et al. 2000). Using photo identification and observational
survey techniques, abundance and distribution patterns have been systematically examined over time.
Monitoring trends have suggested that a distinct feeding aggregation extends from Southern California
to central Washington with primary migration destinations off mainland Mexico and Central America.
Numbers have steadily increased from the early to late 90’s at a rate of 9% a year, with only a drop of
25% between 1998-1999 that was likely the result of El Nino effects (Calambokidis et al. 2000).
34
William Crosse
Conservation International
To undertake these population studies would require using local knowledge as a catalyst for
identifying key sites representative of sub-systems that provide habitat, suitable environmental
conditions and resources for target species that utilize marine corridor areas. Locations that are known
to be critical foraging, nursery, breeding or spawning grounds are usually effective for use as
ecological targets. Moreover recording abundance trends can be carried out in line with core indicator
3 that employs a field sampling methodology designed to allow further target species (including
corridor-utilizing species) to be concurrently measured along with ecosystem habitat forming and
engineering components. Wide-ranging species that utilize KBAs and surrounding corridor matrices
should be incorporated into lists of selected taxa needing ongoing population monitoring as part of the
field sampling strategy.
Where should this indicator be measured?
Ongoing population monitoring of corridor-utilizing species should be carried out at appropriate sites
within all KBAs and surrounding corridor matrices, principally at significant life history sites
recognized through baseline research,
When should this indicator be measured?
As with core indicator 3 measurements of such species should be carried out once a year or at least
every second year.
7.2 Additional recommended state indicators for implementation
7.2.1 Species on the Red List are down-listed: % improvement towards achieving down listing of
each threatened species, concentrating on rates of decline, starting with Critically Endangered
species (Species)
Removing species from, and even down listing species within, the Red List is a slow and difficult task.
Population-level studies can help us measure the incremental changes towards achieving this task for
the most threatened species (see also indicator 7.2.2). While a number of factors (extent of occurrence
[EOO], area of occupancy [AOO], number of locations at which a species occurs, and number of
mature individuals in the population) contribute to the Red Listing of a species, the most significant
aspect (featured in c.70% of listings) is a decline in one of the factors listed above (e.g., EOO or
population size). The limited number of remaining species are listed not because of population decline,
but due to a very small population or very small range (which are often natural vulnerabilities that
cannot be countered by conservation action). Thus, it is obvious that a key component to address is
decline of threatened species. Ideally declines will not just be slowed or stopped but also reversed.
However, as a first step this indicator concentrates on slowing and stopping declines.
How should this indicator be measured?
First, it is important to identify how to measure the rate of population decline of a species. Around
40% of declining species are listed under categories A or C1, and thus have estimated rates of decline
intrinsically recorded in the Red List. These species have experienced “an observed, estimated,
inferred or suspected reduction of at least 80% over the last three generations, based on: an index of
abundance appropriate for the taxon; a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or
quality of habitat; and actual or potential levels of exploitation”. Explanations of all of these terms,
35
William Crosse
Conservation International
and full listings of the categories and criteria for each species can be found at www.redlist.org and, for
birds, at www.birdlife.org/species/risk.cfm and www.birdlife.org/species/index.cfm respectively.
For species with known background rates of decline, it is possible to monitor decline rates into the
future (directly, or using appropriate surrogates as listed for the species), and thus percentage
achievement towards stopping declines. Percentage achievement per species per year will be:
[decline in previous year] - [decline in current year]
[decline in previous year].
For example, if a species’ decline slowed from 40% in one year to 35% in the next year, the
achievement would be 12.5% ([40-35]/40). While such changes in decline rates may not be significant
year-to-year (due to natural fluctuations, margins of error, etc.), cumulative multi-year monitoring will
identify real changes in decline rates. As an indicator, it is most useful to present the mean value for all
species studied and achievements towards stopping decline. The number of species for which success
was achieved (i.e., declines stopped or slowed) should be listed.
Where should this indicator be measured?
Threatened marine species are found in every region where CI works. Studies can be most efficiently
carried out in an area that has several threatened species, so that some of the data collected will be
useful for more than one study. Ideally, a study will take place across the entire range of a species, but
more often a study in one part of the species’ range can be used to indicate how well a species is doing
over its entire range. Obviously care will need to be taken in choosing a subset of the species’ range
that is expected to be most representative.
When should this indicator be measured?
Most studies will take place during the species’ breeding season, but this will depend on why the
species is threatened. For example, some species may be threatened only in their non-breeding
grounds. We should aim to carry out studies throughout every year for at least the Critically
Endangered species that are on the brink of extinction. Less threatened species can be monitored less
frequently.
Who should measure this indicator?
Regional Programs and CBCs should aim to study, facilitate studies, fund studies, or collate pertinent
information from other studies, for all Critically Endangered species (at a minimum). In many cases,
small grants programs exist to fund studies like these (e.g., Haribon in the Philippines, WCS
international small grants program, BP Conservation Awards). Some CBCs have found that it is most
efficient to set up their own grant for targeting particular partners, such as universities, that have
students who want to do biological field studies. For more information on developing a grants
program, contact the Outcomes Monitoring Support Program. In initial stages, it would be good to
study a cross-taxonomic range of species (mammals, birds, herbivores, fish, plants, and invertebrates),
although this will not be possible in all regions. We should prioritize the most threatened species,
followed by restricted range species.
36
William Crosse
Conservation International
* Above text derived from Conservation International (2004a): The Outcomes Monitoring Framework:
detailed indicator descriptions 2004.
7.2.2 Target species of biodiversity importance are maintained at Key biodiversity Areas:
Change in relative/absolute abundance of conservation relevant target species (threatened,
endemic, congregational species, range restricted, biome restricted assemblages) Species
In support of the RLI (indicators 7.1.1, 7.2.1) monitoring genuine population trends of target species in
particular globally threatened species, links directly to CI’s species conservation target of ‘Extinctions
Avoided.’ Measurement of population change of globally threatened species is particularly important
as it provides essential data for the conservation status of species to be categorized through the RLI
mechanism. While Red List assessments consolidate distribution and population numbers for species
groups, generated indices are somewhat coarse in temporal resolution. Tracking the upward and
downward threatened status of species is a slow process. Species may take some time to change in
population size, trend or range size sufficiently to cross the thresholds to qualify for a higher or lower
Red List category.
Actual fine-scale biological data from field surveys and on-going monitoring activities needs to be
collected and recorded. Population data of target species within KBAs can both feed the RLI as well as
assist in refining KBAs and management systems. Development of the Trends Database (Emmett: In
development) serves as an especially useful tool for consolidating regional population information.
The database is presently under testing in Indochina and the current design allows actual population
trend information to be sorted by species and KBAs identified as strongholds (highest priority sites for
a target species, containing the largest populations and therefore the largest proportions of the global
population). Although the idea is being applied to terrestrial environments, priority marine regions
should consider similar database models to consolidate geo-referenced abundance and distribution data
of target species in regions.
While precedence should be given to measuring upward and downward ratios for Critically
Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable species, relative and absolute abundance data for rangerestricted, biome restricted and congregating species also needs to be collated. Direct monitoring of
these species (vulnerable or irreplaceable but not yet globally threatened) provides vital pre-emptive
knowledge of taxa at risk of falling into threatened status thresholds or population percent ranges.
Measurement of this indicator enables adaptive management and conservation action to offset further
population declines and target species from becoming categorized as threatened on the IUCN Red List.
7.2.3 Ecosystem integrity is maintained at Key Biodiversity Areas: Change in Water Quality at
Key Biodiversity Areas (Site)
Monitoring changes in water quality is an effective measure for evaluating general impacts of coastal
activity as parameters can be negatively influenced through multiple sources of human activity. Water
quality attributes can be major limiting factors to processes within organisms, populations and habitats
within KBAs (Pomeroy et al, 2004). Long term coral reef monitoring for example, has demonstrated
improved coral reef health as a direct result of water quality issues (Peshut, 2003). Monitoring a
selection of physical parameters therefore complements ecological monitoring, in particular core
indicator 3 that examines ecosystem integrity over time. Trends can closely represent human impact
37
William Crosse
Conservation International
on freshwater and coastal areas by deteriorating and suggesting unsustainable use, or recovering
indicating progress towards environmental sustainability as a result of better management efforts
exclusive to tackling destructive coastal activities (Royal Society, 2004).
Physical/biological attributes to be measured should include the following:
1) Turbidity/water clarity – Decreases in water clarity can have a profound effect on
penetration of sunlight below the surface of the water. Subsequent impediment of
important photosynthetic activity are likely to have wider affects on aquatic organisms
heavily reliant on primary productivity processes. Data sets can be obtained from a
variety of instruments (Secchi discs) using different techniques and different calibration
states. Standardized methods need to be developed and disseminated to groups
undertaking measurements in the field
2) Sedimentation - PVC sediment traps adjacent to reefs where field sampling has been
employed can monitor sediment loading arriving onto coastal sites.
3) Water temperature - Temperature is one of the more important measurements to be
considered when examining water quality. Rates of chemical and biological reactions
can be dramatically affected by temperature for example. The solubility of chemical
compounds in water, the distribution and abundance of organisms, the rate of growth of
biological organisms, water density, mixing of different water densities and current
movements are notable parameters controlled by temperature fluctuations
4) Salinity - Salinity changes can affect the well being and distribution of biological
populations. Values may increase or decrease due to the loss or gain of water from
evaporation, rainfall, freezing, melting, or other physical processes.
5) Chlorophyll a concentrations and nutrient loading - using satellite ocean color
imagery (MODIS platforms), this data is particularly useful if validated with ecological
trend measurements, most notably phase shift changes in benthic communities (hard
coral – algal coverage).
7.2.4 Ecosystem integrity is maintained at Key Biodiversity Areas: Change in Marine Trophic
Index at Key Biodiversity Areas (Site)
Similar to core indicator 3 monitoring marine trophic index is a measure of ecosystem integrity. The
indicator also links biological diversity to social and economic concerns and can also therefore be
regarded as an assessment of fishing effort (ecosystem goods and services). Intensification of coastal
and open-sea fisheries has continued to deplete large bodied and higher trophic level species and this
has ultimately led to targeting of increasingly smaller species further down the food chain (Jackson et
al., 2001, Pauly et al., 1998). Removal of species from marine food webs has led to trophic
dysfunction, leaving many ecosystems less resilient to natural and human induced pressures.
Food web cascades forms the basis of the marine trophic index measurement; an ecosystem-based
indicator which summarizes intricate ecological dynamics in a simplified model to describe trophic
relationships among marine animals and plants (Pauly and Watson, 2005). Its main aim is to quantify
changes over time particularly downward trends in the average trophic level of marine animals
exploited by fisheries operating within Key Biodiversity Areas. As an example, the mean trophic level
was constructed for the Galapagos rocky reef system (Okey et al, 2004). Characterization of food web
structure and estimations of trophic interaction strength was undertaken for 42 functional groups using
38
William Crosse
Conservation International
Ecosim and Ecospace methods to investigate relationships between fishing activity and system
dynamics.
In its simplest form, two data sets are required to carry out the analysis. Firstly catch data by
taxonomic groups is required and this should ideally be observed from fishing vessels so to reduce the
problems of unreported catches and aggregation of species into broader life-form categories. Secondly
an estimate of the trophic level for each species group is necessary in order to assign each species
single or multiple roles between producers, herbivores, first-level carnivores, second-level carnivores
and top-level apex predators. Trophic level estimates for fish and invertebrates are determined based
on their diet composition and this information may be found at Fishbase (www.fishbase.org) and on
the Sea Around Us database (www.seaaroundus.org). This existing information is comprehensive, but
some trophic level information may be missing and therefore it may be necessary to also capture
baseline field analysis collecting species-specific digestive track content. Using both data sets it is
possible to estimate the average trophic level of fishery landings by multiplying the proportion in the
catch by the trophic level of the species (Royal Society, 2004).
7.3 Additional pressure & response indicators for implementation
7.3.1 Globally threatened species are being studied (Species): % of threatened species with ongoing
studies or conservation actions that focus on ecology, population or distribution
Monitoring the number and scale of research initiatives on threatened marine species will help
management agencies further understand why species are threatened and what are the best ways to
conserve them. Tracking the number of ongoing studies or conservation actions that specifically focus
of the ecology, population dynamics and distribution patterns of threatened and range-restricted
species is an essential parameter to assess. Baseline studies are imperative if the conservation
community is to make progress on classifying marine species on the Red List and in turn describing
Key Biodiversity Areas that require site conservation plans.
7.3.2 Species are nationally protected (Species):
% of threatened species that have protected status in each nation
National legislation is a powerful tool for expediting species conservation strategies. Information on
percentage of threatened species with protected status in each nation should be captured. Legislative
protection is ineffective if there is little or no concurrent enforcement of legislation. The presence or
absence of a public annual report from relevant environmental enforcement agencies can be carried
out (Conservation International 2004a).
7.3.3 Commercial exploitation of globally threatened species is reduced (Pressure): Change in
number of by-catch fishing incidences of threatened species within marine corridor
The emerging unsustainable nature of fishing has led to the exploitation of species that are of little
commercial importance. As technology and the ensuing effectiveness of fishing procedures have
grown, many catch methods have become non-selective. For this reason populations of threatened
39
William Crosse
Conservation International
species are unnecessarily declining and such incidental catch activities pose a major extinction threat
to already globally threatened marine species. Albatross and petrel seabirds for example, are now
highly threatened through interactions with long-line fishing activities in open sea systems (Birdlife
International, 2004). The Wandering (Diomedea exulans) and Amsterdam Albatross (D.
amsterdamensis) in the South Pacific and Spectacled Petrel (Procellaria conspicillata) in the South
Atlantic have been particularly susceptible to multi-national fleets that operate across similar areas to
the species’ distributional ranges.
Incidental catch methods should be monitored by fishery observers on-board vessels or at landing sites
within basin wide regions. Trends in by-catch incidences provide valuable information indicating
successful or failing legislation plans and sustainable enforcement activities.
Even so, composing a representative picture of both levels and distribution changes over time will
involve vast resources and human effort. Particularly in developing countries this may not be
practically feasible. Nevertheless, by using scenario analysis based on known characteristics of
specific by-catch fishing methods, extrapolation of by-catch levels can be carried out. Recent research
by Lewison & Crowder (2003) involved developing an assessment method that used observer data to
estimate by-catch for one fleet and then employed a scenario analysis to estimate levels for remaining
fleets. The method generated a bounded estimation of by-catch activity within an ocean region,
ranging from the worst-case to the best-case by-catch scenario.
7.3.4 Management and enforcement plans exist & are adopted (Site): Change in number of
protected Key Biodiversity Areas with sustainable & integrated management and enforcement
plans in place.
While appropriate management activities vary widely depending on context, it is imperative to
measure both qualitative and quantitative indicators that assess levels of management
implementation and socio-economic success. Monitoring appropriate response parameters can assist
practitioners in evaluating management, implementation and enforcement performance. The
following should be tracked at Key Biodiversity Areas that are safeguarded.
1) Level of resource conflict – determination of whether or not conflicts associated with
marine protected areas are increasing or decreasing is useful in gauging the level of
community support. The nature and characteristics of conflicts can be used to determine
how well management is responding to associated conflicts.
2) Existence and adoption of a management plan – this indicator aims to outline a
portfolio of management objectives and goals and whether the plan is enforceable. This
will give strategic direction and action for implementation of the marine protected area
and additional enforcement regulations.
3) Community involvement – The number of local people enforcing basic management
plans is an important contributor to local support for management. Tracking employment
rates of local people as protected area staff, guides and surveillance, monitoring and
enforcement personnel is a useful measure. Employment created indirectly through
tourism and tertiary industry should also be tracked. Furthermore, the success of training
and educational awareness workshops as well as the strength of stakeholder partnerships
should be monitored. Involving the community and other stakeholders as much as
40
William Crosse
4)
5)
6)
7)
Conservation International
possible will provide them with more ownership over the protected areas. This can result
in an overall improvement in enforcement and a decrease in infringements. Socioeconomic assessments that target community members and stakeholders help identify the
many important social and cultural processes influencing successful management
strategies (Cinner et al, 2003).
Area boundary demarcation – Demarcation of managed zones boundaries (anchor
buoys, marker buoys and sanctuary signs) to make managed sites conspicuous can be a
critical step in avoiding impending resource use conflicts.
Enforcement levels – If management strategies are to be successfully maintained it is
important to both define enforcement procedures and measure whether the coverage and
function of policing activity remains extensive and effective. Outcomes monitoring must
identify existing enforcement guidelines and consistently evaluate whether they are
periodically reviewed and updated by appropriately trained field staff. Enforcement
coverage as well as frequency of violations and prosecutions must also be measured so to
review regularity of patrolling activity and assess trends in non-compliance actions. The
number of guards/wardens per km² of managed areas should also be given precedence.
Availability of management administrative resources – Similar to above, this is a
measure of the capacity of the management team to carry out and complete its activities
and goals through time. Monitoring the number of employed personnel, their deliverables
as well as the allocation of funding and equipment to undertake surveillance and
monitoring is important in measuring the level of compliance to protected area
regulations.
Research Stations – The presence of research stations, universities and local NGO’s
indicates significant interest in effective long-term management. The existence and
application of scientific research inputs can be used as a measure of how research
activities and scientific knowledge feeds back into improved and adaptive management.
Thus measuring the percent of Key Biodiversity Areas that have operating field research
facilities is key to gauging the maintenance and modification of protected areas and other
management forms.
A well-designed management rating system model for marine protected areas has been developed for
the Philippines (White et al, 2004). While as many as 430 marine managed areas have been
established in the country, many still lack applied and sustainable management structures and as a
result are not given the opportunity to successfully protect and conserve species and habitats. With this
in mind, the management rating system concept has been designed to measure end benefits of
management tools as well as the level of community and stakeholder contribution. Collected
information not only explicitly measures changes in management efficacy but also provides feedback
to community members and practitioners by recognizing attributes needing improvement.
The application of similar models across further priority marine regions is potentially huge,
particularly if integrated into the outcomes monitoring database for analysis purposes. Measuring and
documenting management characteristics at a higher resolution than simply whether safeguarded areas
exist or not (e.g. gradients of management level 1 – 5, based on above variables) enables correlations
linking community, management and enforcement factors and trends in biotic components (species,
habitats) to be better explored. This has been investigated to great effect at four study sites in the
41
William Crosse
Conservation International
Philippines using management rating system outputs and long-term ecological data (White &
Walmsley, 2003).
Similar to the development of an ecological integrity index, the management rating system provides a
mechanism by which to aggregate socio-economic parameters into an easily measurable management
effectiveness indicator, a measure recommended for implementation by the CBD consortium.
Preliminary work is also underway to analyze management effectiveness as part of the Sea Around Us
Project work on marine protected areas. Furthermore, an outlined conceptual framework for measuring
management effectiveness for Mesoamerica aims to identify if management plans are being effectively
sustained and are conducive to maintaining critical biological and ecological characteristics (Corrales,
2004).
Building on previous efforts to standardize socio-economic assessment measures (Bunce et al, 2000,
2003), the Marine Management Area Science Initiative will also serve as a testing ground for evaluating
best-fit socio-economic measures through comparative analyses. Long-term collection of empirical
socio-economic data will strengthen the development of models considered most efficient for measuring
the success of protected area management and enforcement mechanisms. Its intention would not be to
just qualify levels of marine managed areas, but also to better recognize key weaknesses, where the gaps
lie, what the priorities should be and how strategies can be redirected when necessary. These
assessments will help establish a sound basis for leveraging further political and financial support for
marine management area initiatives, in particular by evaluating how management strategies improve the
quality of life for local communities and stakeholders.
7.3.5 Biodiversity threats are reduced (Site): Change in number of unsustainable & illegal fishing
incidences within marine Key Biodiversity Areas
While an array of threats directly disturb coastal ecosystem communities, obvious signs of destructive
fishing activity should be monitored closely. Destructive and desperate forms of harvesting remain
major threats to the viability of target species and the continuance of ecological processes such as
herbivory and settlement and recruitment patterns. Information on the number and, if feasible, the
location of illegal fishing incidences should be recorded by fishery vessels, park staff and tourists. As
part of a successful coral reef monitoring program in Komodo National Park, Indonesia, the frequency
and location of blast fishing activity has been systematically measured. A simple, easily trainable,
observational program by park rangers was undertaken at 185 sites inside and outside park boundaries
and repeated every 2nd year. Data collected demonstrated that management and routine enforcement
activity had been successful in decreasing blast fishing in the park (Mous et al, 2003).
Change in Number of extractive mining activities in Key Biodiversity Areas (Site)
Mining activities can place a significant amount of pressure on marine and estuarine biodiversity
components. The long-term effects associated with dredging for example can include large-scale
changes to estuarine/marine bathymetry and habitat characteristics. Dramatic modifications in
substrate landscapes are likely to shift productivity processes through the removal of plants and
animals strongly dependent on extracted sediment habitats. Extraction activity can also alter estuarine
42
William Crosse
Conservation International
circulation patterns, disturbing benthic and demersal communities heavily sensitive to change in
salinity gradients.
Monitoring the location, extent and type of extractive processes serves as useful information if
overlaid onto conservation priority areas (KBAs), in particular distribution maps of target species and
critical habitat areas. Most importantly the type and scale of industry should be noted, yet data
regarding the location, area covered and length of project can also serve as valuable information for
analysis purposes.
Change in coastal population density (number of persons/km coastline) within Key Biodiversity Area
(Site)
Documenting changes in the location and number of people residing within KBAs can indirectly
evaluate human pressure levels placed on biodiversity components in close proximity. Human induced
factors that degrade marine and estuarine environments are often directly proportional to coastal
population sizes. Potentially damaging factors including infrastructure development, fishing,
recreation and tourism activity are often augmented with increasing numbers of people inhabiting
coastal areas (Ward et al, 1998). Above all, population density of coastal municipalities is often
regarded as a valuable index of local fishing effort, an indicator that is difficult to obtain data on
particularly in developing coastal communities where un-coordinated and small-scale
artisinal/subsistence fishing activity is widespread. While fishing effort data may be available in some
areas, in many circumstances consistent time-series records would be difficult to compile. Census
population information on the other hand can be easily attained through national or local statistics
offices.
7.3.6 Legislation and regulations to protect biodiversity (Corridor): Change in number of
legislative plans in place to protect marine biodiversity
It is widely accepted that particular legislative frameworks targeting selected biodiversity components
hold importance in achieving biodiversity conservation goals by delivering guidance through specific
regulations. With respect to threats, protecting important marine areas is perhaps the most effective
legislative act that can be employed. Yet further tools can also help alleviate ecosystem wide threats
and some notable fishery acts/policies include the implementation of catch minimum & maximum
landing sizes, closed fishing seasons, gear restrictions (mesh size), fishery quotas and Total Allowable
Catch regulations. Both the type and specific levels (or limitations) associated with each regulation can
be gathered from fishery management offices within marine corridor regions or across national
boundaries. Additional notable examples may also include legislations prohibiting research and
operations into mining, discharge effects related to aquaculture activity and the dumping of material
waste. National and regional legislations and regulations will vary between countries and regional
programs and CBCs should therefore note the presence of international conventions and regional and
national wide legislative acts formally in place to protect marine biodiversity elements within marine
corridors or national boundaries.
43
William Crosse
Conservation International
7.3.7 Biodiversity threats are reduced (Corridor): Change in frequency and area coverage of
fishing trawling activity
Both large and small-scale demersal trawling activities have a considerable impact on ecosystem
communities with the magnitude related to both the frequency of trawling and the nature and
vulnerability of the benthic assemblages being affected. As an example, two deep-sea coral species,
Lophelia pertusa and Oculina varicose, are now being severely threatened in Northern European
waters. As traditional fish stocks have further become depleted, bottom-trawling activity has moved to
targeting deeper waters that are now dramatically disturbing these coral beds. The towed nets not only
break up the reef structure by killing coral polyps, but also alter the hydrodynamic and sedimentary
processes, thus exposing the reef to sedimentation effects (Hall-Spencer et al, 2002).
Currently there is little information about the colonization, growth and distribution patterns of most
species affected by trawling and it is also practically difficult to systematically measure biotic changes
‘in situ’ (Ward et al, 1998). However, biological effects of trawling can be indirectly associated with
the type of gear used and frequency of trawl passes. This indicator should track the intensity of
trawling at point locations. Data such as annual estimates of area sweeps as well as the location of
trawling grounds in marine corridors can be spatially represented yearly and at a finer scale of
resolution graphs displaying trends in trawling effort can be created for each fishery. In most regions
fishery management agencies will record details of fishing effort including the exact position of
trawling movements within KBAs and marine corridors.
8. Applying regional perspective to the global outcomes monitoring model
The above framework and accompanied indicators intend to be globally universal, thus the present state
of the model is not confined to fit particular biological, ecological, socio-economic or bio-geographical
factors. It is hoped that regional practitioners can identify how concepts, parameters and tools fit to meet
their distinctive environmental and social conditions. While this report serves as a research platform to
continue building from as well as a preliminary guidance tool for regional programs, effective execution
of the framework cannot begin until this globally inclusive model is adapted and integrated to suit
current regional conditions. A recent workshop in Panama City for the ETPS enabled the author to
pinpoint some key products that could help attune regional perspective better.
Throughout this report there has been emphasis on three central themes associated with large-scale
monitoring; standardization, avenues of communication and data centralization. It is often difficult to
present these issues to regional partners and decision makers if their importance is not articulated in a
way that allows them to recognize the feedback benefits, most notably adapting conservation action to
fill gaps and helped leverage sustainable monitoring funds. Many localized monitoring programs apply
measurements to determine changing circumstances of that area exclusively. There still seems to be little
acknowledgment of the rewards broad scale status monitoring can bring to local conservation initiatives.
Nevertheless a great example of monitoring standardization has been seen in Colombia in recent years.
The implementation of a nation-wide monitoring program in 1998 has since led to a further increase in
the number of permanent monitoring stations set-up, both on the Pacific and Caribbean coastlines of the
country. The standardized use of CARICOMP (Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity Program)
44
William Crosse
Conservation International
monitoring protocols as well as the development of an open access database system has enabled the
collection of consistent and reliable data over the last 10 years (Garzon-Ferreira, 2003). The availability
of status and trend data across the national network of protected areas has built further awareness among
managers, stakeholders and community members. Consistent delivery of biological and socio-economic
information has stimulated increasing interest and support for the national monitoring program, both
financially and socially. This successful case can serve as a highly valuable model for helping to
articulate the value of large-scale status monitoring strategies.
In order to better adapt the global model for regional programs we propose developing mock up
products that spatially portray information on current monitoring initiatives in regions. Factors to
qualitatively and quantitatively represent should include:
1) Level of baseline knowledge
2) Type of information (biophysical, socio-economic, management) collected
3) Quality of information collected
4) Frequency of data collection
5) Level of data resolution
6) Quality of existing monitoring information
7) Methods deployed for measurement
8) Current data format
9) Source of information – present capacity/expertise
10) Level of sustainable funding
Mapping the above information across regions of interests (seascape units) can serve two purposes.
Firstly it can perform as a means to better express key points (standardization, data management) by
visualizing spatial consistencies and incompatibilities between current monitoring programs in place.
For it to function simply as such a communication tool, the level of information does not need to be
comprehensive. However, if highly interpretable information can be obtained from point locations
across well-defined regions, the formulation of a monitoring data layer can support key decision making
if overlaid onto other information layers that convey conservation priority areas (KBAs) threat levels
(population levels, fishing activity, coastal development) and existing conservation strategies (protected
areas).
Using ETPS as a testing region we aim to collect and spatially express monitoring information from key
areas within the region’s boundaries. The presence of valuable partners at the workshop in Panama City
allowed baseline knowledge of monitoring capability from the Galapagos Islands, Coiba National Park,
Gorgona, Malpelo (Colombia) and the Cocos Islands to be consolidated. While this preliminary
information can help design the tool, more in-depth monitoring questions need to be posed to these areas
if the product is to be of use in ongoing ETPS work. Work on this data layer will be carried out between
October and December 2005 and will be presented at the Outcomes Monitoring Taskforce meeting at
the end of the calendar year.
45
William Crosse
Conservation International
As a baseline, table.1 and table.2 outline feedback information from the Galapagos Islands research
network. This information was collected during the ETPS science meeting in Panama City, September
2005.
Table.1 – Socio-economic monitoring information gathered from the Galapagos Islands (Alex Hearn –
Charles Darwin Research Station)
Indicator
Level of knowledge
Quality of
information
Methods
used
Number of destructive fishing
activities
High (High for legal
fishing)
Problems in
quantifying illegal
fishing
Number and total tonnage of
fishing boats
High
Coastal human population
density within priority regions
High
Medium
Number of municipalities within High
priority regions
Medium
Number of by-catch fishing
incidences of conservation
relevant species
Low-medium
Group/functional Long-line
level, some cases pilot study
species level
Percent and number of priority
areas that are managed with a
binding contractual agreement
High
Status of management
parameters (number of
wardens/guards, demarcation,
research presence, funding,
fishing restrictions)
Good on paper, not
so good in real life
Format
Expert source of
information
Reports
Hearn, Murillo,
fishing reports
CDF
Reports
Hearn, Murillo,
fishing reports
CDF
Reports
Murillo et al.
Zarate, Hearn
Reports
Comments
On paper there
is full zonation of
the coast. In
reality, it is not
implemented
GNPS
Better
implementation
and agreements
needed
Protection status of target
species at national level
Level of active research on
conservation relevant species
(ecology/ population/
distribution)
High
Fishing regulation at national
level
Not applicable, but
there is a Fishing
Calendar at local
level. Good
knowledge but only
for sea cucumber and
lobster. Historical data
on others
Onboard
Reports
observer
programs,
volunteers at
landing sites
46
Better
governance
William Crosse
Conservation International
Table. 2 – Biological monitoring information gathered from the Galapagos Islands (Alex Hearn –
Charles Darwin Research Station)
Indicator/characteristic
Geography
Level of
knowledge
High
Quality of
information
Methods used
Format
Expert source of
information
Comments
Excellent
Oceanographic parameters Medium
Good
SeaWiFs Data,
NASA-buoy arrays,
INOCAR cruises
S Banks, INOCAR
Biological-physical
dynamics/relationships
Some
Medium
Herbivory
Some
Recruitment and
settlement rates
Poor
Pelagic species
Medium
Restricted range spp
High
Congretory spp
Low
Biome restricted spp
Low
Habitat forming/
architectural
High
Habitat engineering
species
Medium
Key predator species
High
Invasive species
population information
Low
Herbivores (key grazers)
High
Wide-ranging species
(corridor utilizing)
Low
Marine trophic index
Low
Component attributes of
water quality
Medium - Low
Need for
fisheries
monitoring data
Initial
Some work on lobster
collectors
(unsuccessful) also
barnacle recruitment
plaques (John
Witman)
Turtle nesting site
analysis
Fer Rivera (fish), John Currently
Witman (upwelling
working with
recruitment)
JICA and PNG to
re-float lobster
recruitment
studies
Zarate
High
PAGGRA, ecological
field monitoring
Ecological field
monitoring
High
Ecological field
monitoring
Turtle nesting site
analysis
Low
Patty Zarate
Okey et al.
JICA?
* Preliminary data reports for Coiba, Cocos Islands, Gorgona and Malpelo still pending.
47
Need for data
on regional
movements
William Crosse
Conservation International
9. Conclusion
In conclusion, it is hoped the contents of this document not only provides a foundation for further
work but also helps synergize many fast moving marine initiatives currently housed within
Conservation International. From the Global Marine Species Assessment and CI’s spatial analysis
capacity to the creation of seascape management units and marine management areas, each venture has
strong linkages and the stream of communication and technical information needs to remain
continuous.
The level of resources, information and expertise in marine conservation is enormous and thus it has
been difficult getting closure on many subject areas outlined in this document. The design of this
report has tried to be succinct by linking some of the most contemporary and empirical marine
scientific and conservation concepts with the institutional framework Conservation International
continues to value as the best way to push forward with.
Further developments will include applying the global model to both regional priority areas as well as
different marine systems, in particular deep-sea areas. Deep-sea systems are inherently different to
coastal systems and this is particularly true with respect to the methodologies and techniques
necessary to overcome logistical complications. However the framework and priority indicators
outlined in this report are both generic and adaptable enough for the model to be applied to these areas.
As with above, a strategy needs to be devised for testing. These products and concepts will continue to
be advanced and will be presented at the December Outcomes Monitoring Taskforce meeting. We also
hope final institutional decisions on the indicators for implementation and measurement will be made
by the end of the calendar year.
48
William Crosse
Conservation International
10. References
Andréfouét, S., Müller-Karger, F.E, Gochberg, E.J., Hu, C., Carder, K.L (2001). Change detection in
shallow coral reef environmental using Landsat 7/ETM+. Remote Sensing of Environment. 78: 150162 (Special Issue Landsat 7).
Alcala, A.C., Russ, G.R., Maypa, A.P., Calumpong, H.P. 2005. A long-term, spatially replicated
experimental test of the effect of marine reserves on local fish yields. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 98108.
Balasubramanian, H. 2004. Patterns of Coral Reef Fish Species Diversity: A Case Study in Southeastern Cuba. MSc Thesis, Oxford University. Pages 74.
Beck, M.W., Ferdana, K., Karr, K. 2003. Marine Ecoregional Planning Advice: Marine Initiative.
Report document for The Nature Conservancy.
Birdlife International. 2004. Tracking Ocean Wanderers: the global distribution of albatrosses and
petrels. Results from the global procellariiform tracking workshop, 1-5 September, 2003, Gordon’s
Bay, South Africa.
Boyd, C. 2004. Ecological Networks and Biodiversity Conservation Corridors. Report to Conservation
International.
Bunce, L., Townsley, P., Pomeroy, R., Pollnac, R., 2000. Socioeconomic Manual for Coral Reef
Management, 2nd edition. GCRMN and Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville pp.251
(ISBN 0 642 32205 8).
Bunce. L., Pomeroy, B. 2003. Socioeconomic Monitoring Guidelines for Coastal Managers in
Southeast Asia: SOCMON SEA. GCRMN and World Commission on Protected Areas, NOAA
Washington DC, pp. 82.
Butchart, S.H.M et al. 2005. Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and
beyond. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. Online Publication.
Brooks, T.M., Fonseca, G.A.B & Rodigues, A.S.L. (2004) Species, data, and conservation planning.
Conservation Biology 18: 1682-1688.
Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E. & Fonseca, G.A.B. da (2001) Effectiveness of parks in
protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291: 125–128.
Calambokidis, J., G.H. Steiger, K. Rasmussen, J. Urbán R., K.C. Balcomb, P. Ladrón de Guevara P.,
M. Salinas Z., J.K. Jacobsen, C.S. Baker, L.M. Herman, S. Cerchio and J.D. Darling. 2000. Migratory
destinations of humpback whales that feed off California, Oregon and Washington. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 192:295-304.
49
William Crosse
Conservation International
Carr, M., Neigel, J.E., Estes, J.A., Andelman, S., Warner, R.R., & Largier, J.L. 2003. Comparing
Marine and Terrestrial Ecosystems: Implications for the design of coastal marine reserves. Ecological
Applications, 13(1): 90-107.
Conservation International, 2004a. The Outcomes Monitoring Framework: Detailed indicator
descriptions: December 2004. Framework document. Washington, DC.
Conservation International, 2004b. Conserving Earth’s Living Heritage: A Proposed Framework for
Designing Biodiversity Conservation Strategies. Framework document. Washington, DC.
Corrales, L. 2004. Manual for rapid evaluation of Management Effectiveness in Marine Protected
Areas of Mesoamerica. The Nature Conservancy – Technical document no 17.
Cowen, R.K. 2001. Oceanographic Influences on Larval Dispersal and Retention and their
Consequences of Population Connectivity. Coral Reef Fishes. Academic Press. 149-170.
Cowen, R.K., K.M.M. Lwiza, S. Sponaugle, C. Paris, D. Olson. (2000). Connectivity of marine
populations: Open or Closed? Science 287:857-859.
Davis, G.E. 2005. National Park stewardship and ‘vital signs’ monitoring: a case study from Channel
Islands National Park, California. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Fresh. Ecosyst. 15: 71-89.
Eken, G., Bennun, L., Brooks, T.M., Darwall, W., Fishpool, L.D.C., Foster, M.S., Knox, D.,
Langhammer, P., Matiku, P., Radoford, E., Salaman, P., Sechrest, W., Smith, M.L., Spector, S. &
Tordoff, A. (2004) Key Biodiversity Areas as site conservation targets. Bioscience 54: 1110-1118.
Edgar, G.J & Garske, L. 2004. Conservation Outcome Indicators for the Galapagos Marine Reserve.
Report to Conservation International.
Edgar, G.J., Samson, C.R., Barrett, N.S. 2005. Species extinction in the marine environment:
Tasmania as a regional example of overlooked losses in biodiversity.
English, S., Wilkinson, C., Baker, V. 1997. Survey Manual for Tropical Marine Resources (2nd
Edition). Australian Institute of Marine Science. Townsville.
Estes, J.A, and D.O. Duggins. 1995. Sea otters and kelp forests in Alaska: generality and variation in
a community ecological paradigm. Ecological Monographs 65:75-100.
Garzón-Ferreira, J. 2004. Broad-scale Monitoring of Coral Reef Protected Areas in Colombia. In:
Monitoring Coral Reef Marine Protected Areas. 2003. Wilkinson, C et al. Version.1. 72 pages.
Graham, M.H. 2004. Effects of Local Deforestation on the Diversity and Structure of Southern
California Giant Kelp Forest Food Webs. Ecosystems. 7:341-357.
50
William Crosse
Conservation International
Green, E.P., Mumby, P.J., Edwards, A.J. and Clark, C.D. (Ed. A.J. Edwards) (2000). Remote
Sensing Handbook for Tropical Coastal Management. Coastal Management Sourcebooks 3.
UNESCO, Paris. x + 316 pp. + 24 color plates. ISBN 92-3-103736-6.
Green, R.E., Balmford, A., Crane, P.R., Mace, G.M., Reynolds, J.D., Turner, R.K. 2004. A
Framework for Improved Monitoring of Biodiversity: Responses to the World Summit on
Sustainable Development. Conservation Biology. 19:56-65.
Hall-Spencer, J et al. 2002. Trawling damage to Northeast Atlantic ancient coral reefs. Proc. R. Soc.
London B.
Halpern, B.S. 2003. The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve size matter?
Ecological Applications 13: S117-S137.
Hastings, A., Botsford, L.W. 2003. Comparing designs for marine reserves for fisheries and for
marine biodiversity. Ecological Applications 13(1): 65-70.
Heppell, S.S, Heppell, S.A, Read, A.J, Crowder, L.B. Effects of Fishing on Long-Lived Marine
Organisms. Pages 211-232 in Norse, E.A, Crowder, L.B (eds). Marine Conservation Biology: The
science of maintaining the sea’s biodiversity. Island Press.
Hill, J & Wilkinson, C. 2004. Methods for Ecological Monitoring of Coral Reefs: A resource for
managers - Version 1. 117 pages.
Hodgson, G. 2000. Coral reef monitoring and management using Reef Check. Integrated Coastal
Zone Management. 1(1): 169-176.
Hooker, S. and L.R. Gerber. (2004) Potential importance of megafauna: Marine reserves as a tool for
ecosystem-based management? BioScience 54(1): 29-41.
IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 3.1. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Jackson, J.B.C et al. 2001. Historical Over-fishing and Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems.
Science. 293: 629-638.
Jameson, S.C., Erdmann, M.V., Karr, J.R., Potts, K.W. 2001. Charting a course toward diagnostic
monitoring: A continuing review of coral reef attributes and a research strategy for creating coral
reef indexes of biotic integrity. Bulletin of Marine Science. 69(2): 701-744.
Knowlton N. 2004. Multiple "stable" states and the conservation of marine ecosystems. Progress in
Oceanography. 60, pp. 387-396.
Knowlton N. 2001. Who are the Players on Coral Reefs and does it matter? The Importance of Coral
Taxonomy for Coral Reef Management. Bulletin of Marine Science, Vol 69, No2. 305-308.
51
William Crosse
Conservation International
Lang. J. 2003. Status of Coral Reefs in the Western Atlantic: Results of initial surveys, Atlantic Gulf
Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) Program. Atoll Research Bulletin, Vol. 496.
Lewison, R. and L. Crowder. 2003. Evaluating the impact of fishery by-catch on a vulnerable
seabird population: Putting together the pieces of the puzzle. Ecological applications (In revision).
Loh, J. 2004. Living Planet Report. WWF/UNEP/WCMC.
McClanahan, T.R., R. Arthur. 2001. The effect of marine reserves and habitat on populations of East
African coral reef fishes. Ecological Applications 11(2): 559-569.
McField, M.D., Hallock, P., Jaap, W.C. 2001. Multivariate Analysis of Reef Community Structure in
the Belize Barrier Reef Complex. Bulletin of Marine Science 69(2): 745-758.
Micheli, F & Halpern, B.S. 2005. Low functional redundancy in coastal marine assemblages.
Ecology Letters 8: 391-400.
Mosquera, I., Côté, I.M., Jennings, S. & Reynolds, J.D. (2000). Conservation benefits of marine
reserves for fish populations. Animal Conservation 3: 321-332.
Mous, P., Pet, J., Raka, G., Subijanto, Y., Muljadi, A., Djohani, R. 2004. How monitoring
demonstrated effective control of blast fishing in Komodo National Park. In: Monitoring Coral Reef
Marine Protected Areas. 2003. Wilkinson, C et al. Version.1. 72 pages.
Mumby, P.J & Dytham, C. Metapopulation dynamics of hard corals. In: Marine Metapopulations, JP
Kritzer & PF Sale (eds.), Academic Press (In press)
Mumby, P.J., Green, E.P., Edwards, A.J., Clark, C.D. 1997. Coral reef habitat mapping: how much
detail can remote sensing provide? Marine Biology, 130: 192-202.
Mumby, P.J., Harborne, A.R (1999) Development of a systematic classification scheme of marine
habitats to facilitate regional management of Caribbean coral reefs. Biological Conservation 88(2):
155-163
Mumby, P.J et al. 2003. Mangroves enhance the biomass of coral reef fish communities in the
Caribbean. Nature. 427: 533-536.
Okey, T. A., S. Banks, A. F. Born, R. H. Bustamante, M. Calvopiña, G. J. Edgar, E. Espinoza, J. M.
Fariña, L. E. Garske, G. K. Reck, S. Salazar, S. A. Shepherd, V. Toral-Granda, & P. Wallem. 2004.
A trophic model of a Galápagos subtidal rocky reef for evaluating fisheries and conservation
strategies. Ecological Modeling. 101-111.
Peterson, C.H., Estes, J.A. 2001. Conservation and Management of Marine Communities. In: Marine
Community Ecology. Sinauer Associates, Inc, Sunderland. Pages-469-507.
Myers, A.M & Ottensmeyer, A.C. 2005. Extinction Risk in Marine Species. Pages 58-80 in Norse,
E.A, Crowder, L.B (eds). Marine Conservation Biology: The science of maintaining the sea’s
biodiversity. Island Press.
52
William Crosse
Conservation International
Norse, E.A., Crowder, L.B., Gjerde, K., Hyrenbach, D., Roberts, C.M., Safina, C., Soule, M.E. 2005.
Place-based Ecosystem Management in the Open Ocean. Pages 302-328 in Norse, E.A, Crowder,
L.B (eds). Marine Conservation Biology: The science of maintaining the sea’s biodiversity. Island
Press.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., & Torres Jr, F. 1998. Fishing Down Marine
Food Webs. Science, 279: 860-863.
Pauly, D & Watson, R. 2005. Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a
measure of biodiversity. Phil. Trans. Soc. B. 360: 415-423.
Peshut, P.J. 2003. Monitoring Demonstrates Management Success To Improve Water Quality in Pago
Pago Harbor, American Samoa. In: Monitoring Coral Reef Marine Protected Areas. 2003. Wilkinson,
C et al. Version.1. 72 pages.
Peterson, C.H., and J.A. Estes. 2001. Conservation And Management Of Marine Communities. In
Marine Community Ecology. M.D. Bertness, S. D. Gaines, and M.E. Hay, Eds. Sinauer Associates,
Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E., Watson, L.M. 2004. How is your MPA doing?: A guidebook of Natural
and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness.
IUCN – The World Conservation Union. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Roberts, C.M. 1997. Connectivity and Management of Caribbean Coral Reefs. Science 278: 14541456.
Roberts, C. 2002. Deep impact: the rising toll of fishing in the deep sea. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 17 (5): 242-245
Roberts, C.M et al., 2002. Marine Biodiversity Hotspots and Conservation Priorities for Tropical
Reefs. Science 295: 1280-1284.
Roberts, C., G. Branch, R. Bustamante, J.C. Castilla, J. Dugan, B. Halpern, K. Lafferty, H. Leslie, J.
Lubchenco, D. McArdle, M. Ruckelshaus and R. Warner. 2003. Application of ecological criteria in
selecting marine reserves and developing reserve networks. Ecological Applications 13(1): 215-228.
Royal Society, 2003. Measuring Biodiversity for Conservation. Policy document 11/03. Royal
Society, London.
Royal Society, 2004. Convention on Biological Diversity. ‘Beyond extinction rates: monitoring wild
nature for the 2010 targets.’ Meeting and workshop document. Royal Society, London.
Ruth, M & Lindholm, J, 2002. Dynamic Modeling for Marine Conservation. Springer-Verlag. 449
pages.
53
William Crosse
Conservation International
Sale et al. 2005. Critical science gaps impede the use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends in Ecology
and Evolution, 20 (2): 84-90.
B.X. Semmens, J.L. Ruesink, and C.V. Pattengill-Semmens. In prep. Multi-site multi-species
trends: a new tool for coral reef managers. Proc. International Coral Reef Symposium, October
2000.
Scholes, R.J & Biggs, R. 2005. Biodiversity an index of biological intactness. Nature 434: 45−49|
Shears, N.T., Babcock, R.C. 2003. Continuing trophic cascade effects after 25 years of no-take
marine reserve protection. Marine Ecology Progress Series 246: 1-16.
Sobel, J & Dahlgren, C. 2004. Marine Reserves: A guide to science, design, and use. Island Press.
383 pages.
Steneck, R. S., Sala, E. A. 2005. Large marine carnivores: trophic cascades and top-down controls
in coastal ecosystems past and present. Pages 110 - 137 in Ray, J., Redford, K., Steneck, R. and
Berger, J. (eds) Large Carnivores and the conservation of biodiversity. Island Press.
Steneck, R. S., Graham, M. H. , Bourque, B. J., Corbett, D., Erlandson, J. M, Estes, J. A., and
Tegner, M. J. 2002. Kelp forest ecosystem: biodiversity, stability, resilience and their future.
Environmental Conservation. 29 (4): 436-459.
Steneck, R. S., Vavrinec, J., & Leland, A. V. 2004. Accelerating trophic level dysfunction in kelp
forest ecosystems of the western North Atlantic. Ecosystems. 7(4): 323-331.
Syms, C., & Carr, M.H. 2001. Marine protected areas: evaluating MPA effectiveness in an uncertain
world. Available at Marinet: North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation site.
Walmsley, S.F. and White, A.T. 2003. Influence of social, management and enforcement factors on
the long-term ecological effects of marine sanctuaries. Environmental Conservation. 30(4): 388407.
Ward, T., Butler, E., Hill, B. 1998. Environmental Indicators for state of the environment reporting:
estuaries and the sea. CSIRO Division of Marine Research. Pages 81.
White, A.T., Meneses, A.T., Ovenden, M.F. 2004. Management rating system for marine protected
areas: An important tool to improve management, p. 226-231. In DA-BFAR (Department of
Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine
marine fisheries, Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.
Wilkie, D. 2005. Living landscapes technical manual 3: Measuring our effectiveness: a framework
for monitoring. Wildlife Conservation Society.
Wilson E.O. (1992). The diversity of life. W.W. Norton Company and Inc., New York, 424 pages.
54
Conservation
Outcome target
William Crosse
Category
State,
Pressure or
Response
Indicator target
Skill
Level
Effort in data
collection &
analysis
Cost of data
collection &
analysis
Sensitivity
of indicator
Conservation International
Indicator
Methodology
Level of
confidence in Comparability
measuring
of indicator
effectiveness
CORE/PRIORITY INDICATORS
Extinctions
Avoided'
Species
State
% change in number of threatened
No of threatened species is
species in each IUCN Red List
reduced
Category
Site
State
Ecosystem integrity is
maintained at Key
Biodiversity Areas *
Change in habitat distribution &
ecosystem composition and structure
within KBAs
Field ‘in situ’ transect and
quadrat surveys
4
5
5
3
5
5
Site
Response
KBAs are formally
safeguarded
Change in % of all KBAs that are
protected with a binding contractual
agreement & biodiversity conservation
as a management objective
Remote Sensing Overlay existing/new
protected area maps with
KBA maps
2
5
4
5
2
5
Corridor
State
Change in relative/absolute
Biotic interactions &
abundance and distribution patterns of
connectivity are maintained corridor utilizing species (migratory
species).
Field Surveys - photoidentification, tagging,
systematic observational
surveys
4
5
5
3
4
4
5
3
1
3
5
5
Sites Protected'
Corridors
Consolidated
Red List Calculation
5
3
1
1
4
5
ADDITIONAL/SUPPLEMENTARY INDICATORS
Extinctions
Avoided'
Species
State
% improvement towards achieving
down-listing of each threatened
Species on the Red List are
species, concentrating on rates of
down-listed
decline, starting with Critically
Endangered species.
Species
State
Target species of
Field ‘in situ’ Surveys.
Change in relative/absolute
biodiversity & ecological
Analysis through trends
abundance trends of target species **
importance are maintained
database
4
4
5
3
5
5
Species
Pressure
Biodiversity threats are
reduced
3
3
3
4
3
3
Species
Response
Threatened species are
studied
2
2
1
5
1
5
Site
State
Ecosystem integrity is
maintained at KBAs
Change in water quality at KBAs
(Sediment load, Temperature,
Turbidity, BOD, Nitrogen, Chlorophyll
a, pH level).
Sea-WIFS imagery data,
laboratory analysis,
thermometer & light
readings
3
5
4
3
3
5
Site
State
Ecosystem integrity is
maintained at KBAs
Change in Marine Trophic Index at
KBAs
Field Surveys/Catch
Analysis (vessel or land
sites)
5
5
5
2
4
5
Site
Pressure
Biodiversity threats are
reduced
2
4
4
4
3
3
Site
Pressure
Biodiversity threats are
reduced
2
4
1
5
2
3
Site
Pressure
Biodiversity threats are
reduced
2
4
2
3
2
4
Site
Response
4
4
3
5
2
5
Corridor
Pressure
2
3
1
4
3
2
Corridor
Response
1
1
1
5
2
5
Sites Protected'
Corridors
Consolidated
Management &
enforcement plans & are
adopted
Biodiversity threats are
reduced
National Legislation &
regulation plans exist
Red List Calculation
Change in No of by-catch fishing
incidences of threatened species
Catch surveys on fishery
vessels or at landing sites
Updating of species
Change in No/% of globally threatened
background information
& target species with ongoing studies
workbooks. Tracking of
focusing on ecology, population &
ongoing species research
distribution
studies & funding
Change in number of unsustainable &
illegal fishing incidences within
Observational information
corridors
Data sought from
Change in No of extractive mining
government & private
activities in KBAs
agencies
Change in coastal population density
(No of persons/km coastline) within
KBAs
National & local
government population
census information National Statistics Office
Change in No of protected KBAs with
sustainable & integrated management Surveys/Interviews ***
& enforcement plans in place
Change in frequency and area
Survey of fishing
coverage of fish trawling activity
management agencies
Surveys/research on type
Change in number of legislative plans
& extent of national
and regulations in place to protect
legislation plans in place
marine biodiversity
to protect biodiversity
55
William Crosse
Conservation International
Points to accompany the Indicator Matrix:
> The list below represents the critical biophysical, socio-economic and management components that can consistently and comparably be monitored to
measure conservation success at different scales.
> The indicators aim to be applied to a national & seascape context, but are broad enough in resolution to deliver data necessary to report trends on
biodiversity status at the global scale. Thus they support and strengthen CBD efforts to develop regional and global status indicators
> The candidate indicators are a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to gathering monitoring information.
> Outputs generated from these indicators will either be presented spatially (in the form of map products) or graphically (index-based) showing change in
trends over time (qualitatively or quantitatively).
> Scale: 1-Low, 3-Medium, 5- High
* Key biodiversity areas (site conservation outcomes) are sites that harbor species of global conservation concern in any taxonomic group in both
marine and terrestrial environments. These include globally threatened species, restricted range species, or globally significant congregations of
species at any stage of life history.
** Target species are species for which site-scale conservation is necessary. These species fall into one of two site conservation priorities:
vulnerability and irreplaceability and are identified as (1) globally threatened species, (2) restricted-range species, (3) congregations of
species that concentrate at particular sites during some stage in their life cycle, and (4) biome-restricted species assemblages.
*** Variables to measure marine management area effectiveness
> Management, enforcement and education plan adopted
> Management body formalized (community & stakeholder acceptance)
> Education program sustained with public awareness & compliance
> Collaborative patrolling & surveillance conducted by enforcement group and volunteers (number of staff per ha)
> Active research presence within 90km of key biodiversity area
> Protected area boundaries demarcated (marker/anchor buoys, Marine Management Area guidelines & rules formalized and communicated)
56
William Crosse
Conservation International
Key Acronyms:
AGRRA
Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment
BII
Biodiversity Intactness Index
BINU
Biodiversity Indicators for National Use
CABS
Center for Applied Biodiversity Science
CARICOMP
Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity Program
CBCs
Centers for Biodiversity Conservation
CBD
Convention of Biological Diversity
CI
Conservation International
CMP
Conservation Measures Partnership
ESNO
El Nino Southern Oscillation
ETPS
Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape
GCRMN
Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network
GMSA
Global Marine Species Assessment
IBI
Index of Biotic Integrity
ICRI
International Coral Reef Initiative
KBAs
Key Biodiversity Areas
LPI
Living Planet Index
MMAS
Marine Management Area Science
PRIMER
Plymouth Routines in Multivariate Ecological Research
RLI
Red List Index
SPR
State, Pressure and Response
57