* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Introduction: - Library - Conservation International
Ecological fitting wikipedia , lookup
Unified neutral theory of biodiversity wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Molecular ecology wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Decline in amphibian populations wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical ecology wikipedia , lookup
Conservation agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity wikipedia , lookup
Marine conservation wikipedia , lookup
Conservation movement wikipedia , lookup
Conservation biology wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Conservation psychology wikipedia , lookup
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