Download Introduction: - Library - Conservation International

The Marine Outcomes Monitoring
Framework
William Crosse
Background:
•
Extinction risk of marine species
•
Historical assumptions applied to fishery management tools/models
•
•
•
•
Large geographical ranges
Vast population sizes
Long-distance dispersal mechanisms
High fecundity values – ‘million eggs hypothesis’
Extinction
resistant?
•
Contemporary studies have challenged this view (Roberts & Hawkins, 1999,
Roberts et al, 2002, Carlton et al, 1999 and Dulvy et al, 2003, Edgar et al,
2005)…….
•
…. Marine species also possess limited ranges
Conservation International
October, 2005
Background:
•
Human induced threats are depressing populations
•
Fishing
•
Direct harvesting – Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), Southern Grand
Bank
Non-selective activity – By-catch, Beam trawling
Ecosystem & trophic cascading effects – Caribbean (Jackson et al, 2000,
North American Kelp forests (Steneck et al, 2004)
•
•
•
Habitat loss
•
Mangrove deforestation – Mumby et al (2003)
•
Pollution
•
Eutrophication/nutrification
•
Climate change
•
El Nino/Southern Oscillation - Peruvian anchovy fishery collapse
Conservation International
October, 2005
Outcomes Definition:
•
The central focus for conservation planning should be on species and
the avoidance of species extinction (Brooks et al, 2004)
•
‘Bottom up, data & scientifically driven approach to establish targets
and priorities for conservation strategies
•
….not influenced by socio-economic, political or opportunistic
reasoning
•
….or the use of surrogacy as representative information of species
susceptible to extinction
Conservation International
October, 2005
Outcomes Definition:
•
Key Biodiversity Areas provide a systematic protocol for identifying and
documenting sites critical for global biodiversity conservation (Eken et
al, 2004).
•
Delineation of marine Key Biodiversity Areas triggered by
irreplaceability and vulnerability species criteria (Graham Edgar: in
progress)
•
Biodiversity is distributed across a continuum of scales of ecological
organization….
•
…..thus outcomes definition guides effective conservation planning of
species, sites and biodiversity conservation corridors
Conservation International
October, 2005
Outcomes monitoring:
Species
Extinctions
Avoided
Sites
Areas
Protected
Seascapes
Corridors
Created
Biosphere
Genes
Increasing scale of ecological organization
Outcomes Monitoring is designed to systematically measure progress
towards achieving these three broad scale outcomes targets.
•
Conservation International
October, 2005
Outcomes monitoring:
•
•
•
•
•
National, regional and global scale monitoring platform
Directly measures progress towards achieving conservation
outcomes at species, site and corridor level
Tracks the degree and direction of broad scale trends in threats and
associated conservation action.
Diagnostic monitoring of biodiversity components that provide early
warning information for prioritization of conservation action
Why?
•
•
•
•
Assessment of trends in biodiversity, threats and conservation action
Better assess whether investments are contributing to global, regional
and national conservation success
Identifies further response mechanisms & areas needing to improve
conservation action
Provides valuable data to different audiences (donors, government,
industry, public)
Conservation International
October, 2005
Intervention monitoring:
•
•
•
•
Measures the results of conservation actions applied to a local context
Indicators are measured at a higher level of resolution
Focus is on quantifying the cause and effect relationship between the
status of biodiversity, threats and interventions (SPR model)
Why?
•
•
•
•
•
Explicitly measure success levels of local conservation actions
Experimental science based testing ground
Advances knowledge of intervention and strategy effectiveness
Adaptive management – evaluate & revise the level of conservation
intervention needed to make a positive conservation impact
Lessons learned – improvement of future conservation strategies
Conservation International
October, 2005
Global Monitoring Framework:
•
Important in light of recent developments at the Convention of
Biological Diversity (CBD) – 2010 target
•
Donor and public need for quantitative assessment of biodiversity
components, threats and conservation actions
•
Comparative intervention monitoring – test effectiveness through
experimental design of models
•
Build monitoring partnerships at local, national, regional and global
scales
Conservation International
October, 2005
Multi-scale monitoring framework:
Status & trends
monitoring – CBD
reporting
Hotspot, Eco-region,
Seascape reporting
CBD reporting –
indicators for National
use
Intervention monitoring –
measuring specific
intervention
effectiveness
Conservation International
Global-scale
High spatial
extent of data,
low data
resolution
Regional-scale
National
Scale
Intervention
Scale
Low spatial extent
of data, high data
resolution
October, 2005
Multi-scale framework: Collation & analysis of
monitoring information at different scales:
Global-scale
Regional-scale
National-scale
National-scale
Regional-scale
National-scale
National-scale
Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale
Conservation International
October, 2005
Multi-scale framework: Collation & analysis of
monitoring information at different scales:
Global-scale
Regional-scale
National-scale
National-scale
Regional-scale
National-scale
National-scale
Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale
Local scale information required to measure regional and global trends is
filtered up & distilled for regional and global trend analysis
Conservation International
October, 2005
Multi-scale framework: Collation & analysis of
monitoring information at different scales:
Global-scale
Regional-scale
National-scale
National-scale
Regional-scale
National-scale
National-scale
Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale
Local scale 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
conservation priorities at finer monitoring scales
Conservation International
October, 2005
Multi-scale framework: Collation & analysis of
monitoring information at different scales:
Global-scale
Information filter
Regional-scale
Regional-scale
Information filter
National-scale
National-scale
National-scale
National-scale
Information filter
Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale Local Scale
Local scale 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
conservation priorities at finer monitoring scales
Conservation International
October, 2005
Challenges in scaling up monitoring:
•
Spatial and temporal standardization of SPR variables that need
measurement
•
Consistency in methodologies and sampling strategies applied for
data collection
•
Identify appropriate avenues for communication flow between
different scales and among NGOs, governments, academic
institutions and local stakeholders
•
Harmonization of data analysis and representation
Conservation International
October, 2005
Challenges in applying a biome neutral approach
to outcomes monitoring:
•
Deficiency in marine species data
•
Lack of knowledge of species population information and conservation
status
•
•
2.5% of threatened species are marine (Edgar et al, 2004)
Only 190 marine species are recognized as threatened (CR, EN, VU)
•
Current paucity of marine data limits our ability to define and measure
conservation outcomes through the IUCN Red List and KBA delineation….
•
….Thus investment in the Global Marine Species Assessment (GMSA) is
essential
•
Collecting and consolidating species information will dramatically enhance
the Red List and the progress of outcomes definition
Conservation International
October, 2005
Challenges in applying a biome neutral approach to
status measures:
•
Constraints in using Remote Sensing for change detection
•
To distinguish spatially quantitative properties to detect key habitat classes
•
Pixel level classification of coral, sand, algal beds and sea-grass still lacks
accuracy
•
Turks and Caicos Islands: Landsat TM – 73%, Spot XS – 67% (Mumby et al,
1997)
•
Further limiting factors include cloud cover, water depth effect on signals
and turbidity effects reducing light transmittance through water
•
Higher resolution instruments (QuickBird, IKONOS) and aerial photography
(Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imagery) are presently too expensive for
broad scale application
Conservation International
October, 2005
Challenges in applying a biome neutral approach
to status measures:
Satellite Imagery is an effective tool
for delineating geological/physical
features (reef flat, reef crest, barrier
reef, deep reef)
Field sampling possesses higher reliability
values when measuring change detection
in habitat distribution and community
composition
Conservation International
October, 2005
Challenges in applying a biome neutral approach
to status measures
•
Delineating Marine Biodiversity Conservation
Corridors
•
Information gaps and lack of empirical knowledge related to ecological
linkages, larval dispersal routes and migratory distribution patterns
•
Only theoretical studies support understanding of biological/physical
relationships (Cowen, 2001).
•
Must be cautious in applying corridor terminology synonymously…
•
•
Terrestrial corridors – fragmentation and habitat destruction
Marine corridors – must recognize the movement of pelagic propagules and
species that are independent of benthic features and driven by ocean circulation
patterns
Conservation International
October, 2005
Causal linkages measuring
conservation success
•
Both scales of monitoring are designed to fit the SPR model.
Baseline data collected
for SPR variables
State
Biophysical System
Adaptive
management
Conservation
Outcomes
Targets
established
Outputs &
Activities
•
SPR model strengthens
ability to report on progress
and determine the
effectiveness of strategies
over time.
Milestones
Response
Management System
Pressures
Socio-economic system
Adaptive management
Conservation International
October, 2005
Marine Outcomes Framework & Indicators
•
Proposed indicators are considered practical, achievable and globally applicable.
•
Strongly correlated to the achievement of the three conservation outcomes
•
Their generic and transparent nature allow indicators to be adapted and applied to a
regional context
•
Represent the critical biophysical, socio-economic and management variables that
are feasibly measured across a broad scale.
•
Indicators are status measures designed to report trends.
•
Indicators are both quantitative and qualitative approaches to monitoring.
Conservation International
October, 2005
Priority indicators for implementation:
1) Number of threatened species is reduced: % change in
number of threatened species in each IUCN Red List
category.
Conservation Outcome: ‘Extinction Avoided’
Red List Index provides a scientifically sound mechanism for tracking the
threatened status of across all taxonomic groups (Butchart et al, 2005)
Strongly correlates with CI’s species level outcome target ‘avoiding
extinctions.’
Conservation International
October, 2005
Priority indicators for implementation:
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.
Conservation Outcome: ‘Areas Protected’
Protecting areas is the most important and successful tactic for maintaining
biodiversity and avoiding species extinctions (Bruner et al. 2001)
Measuring both the extent and effectiveness of protected areas is regarded as a
useful indicator for meeting large-scale biodiversity targets (Chape et al, 2005)
Conservation International
October, 2005
Priority indicators for implementation:
3) Key habitats & critical ecological functions are
maintained at protected Key Biodiversity Areas: Change in
habitat distribution & ecosystem composition and structure
within Key Biodiversity Areas
Conservation Outcome: ‘Areas Protected’
Quantity and quality of habitat is among the indicators most highly
correlated with the ability of species to persist an a site.
If habitat quality and ecosystem processes remain established, then
extinction of cryptic, habitat responding species is less likely
Ecosystem features such as architectural, keystone and indicator
species represent biotic components that characterize the ecological
integrity of a system.
Conservation International
October, 2005
Priority indicators for implementation:
Example:
Temperate Kelp Forest Systems (Steneck et al, 2004)
Consumer animals structure Kelp Forests interactions via two primary drivers:
(1) Herbivory by sea Urchins & (2) Carnivory from predators of sea urchins.
Photo by Jon Witman - http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/marinebio/kelpforest.html
Conservation International
October, 2005
Priority indicators for implementation:
North Atlantic’s Gulf of Maine – ‘trophic cascading’
Over-fishing of Atlantic Cod and Haddock (apex predators)
Sea urchin (invertebrate herbivores) population explosion
Architectural Kelp deforestation from increased herbivore grazing
Loss of biodiversity (vulnerable and irreplaceable target species)
Conservation International
October, 2005
Priority indicators for implementation:
Advantages of measuring ‘habitat cover’ indicator at a higher
resolution
•
Provides early warning information to counteract impending biodiversity loss with
adaptive management action.
•
•
Measurement at the species level captures the subtle and hidden nature of associated
threats (fishing, invasive species, climate change)
Allows practitioners to observe changes in functional redundancy and trophic dysfunction
•
Promotes systematic and quantitative broad-scale sampling of critical biotic
components.
•
Further species of interest can be integrated into the sampling strategy
•
•
•
•
Further abundance and distribution point locality data on target species
Invasive species
Corridor-utilizing species
Species of commercial value (ecosystem goods and services)
Conservation International
October, 2005
Priority indicators for implementation:
The development of an index of ecological integrity to measure ‘areas
protected’
•
Potential to incorporate long-term population data into an easily interpretable
and measurable multi-metric index of ecological integrity
•
An ecosystem-based indicator summarizing intricate ecological dynamics in a
simplified model that describes changing levels of ecological condition
•
Requires identifying an ecosystem’s ‘vital signs’ parameters (Davis, 2005)
•
Further developments:
•
•
•
•
Understanding of regional biological and ecological characteristics
Establish baseline reference point to evaluate divergence of ecological integrity
Identify population thresholds and multiple states for index values
Undertake meta-analysis using existing long-term population data as well as
utilize MMAS as a testing platform.
Conservation International
October, 2005
Priority indicators for implementation:
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’
Marine corridors should not be gauged a success unless population numbers of
migratory utilizing species are stable or increasing (Edgar & Garske, 2005)
Species level indicator that directly measures population trends of regionally
specific wide-ranging species at life history bottlenecks
Conservation International
October, 2005
Additional Indicators for measurement:
5) 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)
‘Extinctions Avoided’
6) 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.
‘Extinctions Avoided’
7) Ecosystem integrity is maintained at Key biodiversity Areas:
Change in Water Quality at Key Biodiversity Areas
‘Areas Protected’
Conservation International
October, 2005
Additional Indicators for measurement cont…
8) Ecosystem integrity is maintained at Key biodiversity Areas:
Change in Marine Trophic Index at Key Biodiversity Areas
‘Areas Protected’
9) Globally threatened species are being studied: % of
threatened species with ongoing studies or conservation actions
that focus on ecology, population or distribution
‘Extinctions Avoided’
10) Species are nationally protected: % of threatened
species that have protected status in each nation
‘Extinctions Avoided’
Conservation International
October, 2005
Additional Indicators for measurement cont…
11) Management and enforcement plans exist & are adopted:
Change in number of protected Key Biodiversity Areas with sustainable
& integrated management and enforcement plans in place
‘Areas Protected’
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Level of resource conflict
Existence and adoption of a management plan
Community involvement – employment levels in park staff, guides and surveillance
Area boundary demarcation
Enforcement levels – number of guards per km² of managed KBAs
Availability of management administrative resources
Presence of research stations, universities and local NGO’s
•
Existing management rating systems and socio-economic assessment models
(White et al, 2004, Bunce et al, 2000) provide sound foundations for further
development.
•
Can we aggregate socio-economic/management effectiveness parameters into a single
numerical index for outcomes monitoring analysis of management effectiveness?
Conservation International
October, 2005
Additional Indicators for measurement cont….
12) Biodiversity threats are reduced:
Change in number of unsustainable & illegal fishing incidences
within marine Key Biodiversity Areas (dynamite, cyanide)
Change in Number of extractive mining activities in Key Biodiversity
Areas
Change in coastal population density (number of persons/km
coastline) within Key Biodiversity Area
Change in number of legislative plans in place to protect marine
biodiversity
‘Areas Protected’
Conservation International
October, 2005
Additional Indicators for measurement cont…
13) National fishing legislative & regulation plans exist:
Change in number of national legislative plans in
place to reduce fishing pressure
‘Corridors Consolidated’
14) Biodiversity threats are reduced: Change in frequency and
area coverage of fishing trawling activity
‘Corridors Consolidated’
Conservation International
October, 2005
Further developments:
•
Applying regional perspective to the global outcomes monitoring
model
•
•
Initial development started in ETPS
Creation of monitoring capacity data layer
•
Adapt and apply model to suit deep-sea characteristics
•
Collaborate with existing initiatives and database networks to scale up
monitoring capacity
•
GCRMN, Reefbase, Living Planet Index, Millennium Coral Reef Mapping
Project
•
Continue communication with MMAS and scientific partners to further
develop scientific underpinning of monitoring framework
•
Develop fundraising strategy for biodiversity monitoring workshops in
priority seascapes
Conservation International
October, 2005