Presentation on theme: "Steve Schill, The Nature Conservancy George Raber, University of Southern Mississippi MNGNT VIABILITY THREAT."— Presentation transcript:
Steve Schill, The Nature Conservancy George Raber, University of Southern Mississippi MNGNT VIABILITY THREAT
Tool Objectives Integrate IABIN’s Ecosystem and Protected Area Thematic Networks Provide a simplistic “manager’s dashboard” approach for querying and visualization of effective conservation Permit conservation decision-makers to cross- query ecosystems with protected area information Spatial and tabular reporting of ecosystems and protected areas
What questions does EAR help you to answer? What is the current protection status of each ecosystem? How close are we to meeting conservation goals, what percentage has been achieved? If I need additional hectares to reach my goal, where are the most suitable areas to implement a protection strategy?
What is secure and expected to persist? Where are the gaps in protection and threat abatement? Where are there opportunities to expand and enhance biodiversity protection? What progress are we making? What questions does EAR help you to answer?
Viability Status Threats Status Mngmt Status Mitigate Threats Implement Mngmt Plan Improve Viability Mitigate Threats Improve Viability Implement Mngmt Plan Improve Viability Mitigate Threats Implement Mngmt Plan = Effective Conservation Evaluating Effective Conservation (Higgins et al, 2007)
Evaluating Effective Conservation (Higgins et al, 2007) MEASUREINDICATOR Viability Status Size Condition Landscape Context Conservation Management Status Intent Duration Effective Management Potential Threats Status Severity Scope EFFECTIVE CONSERVATION
EAR Data Model: Eight possible Conservation Action Classes
Requirements for Running EAR Tool 1)Ecosystems GIS Data: Attribute Fields: VIABILITY and THREAT SCORES: Very Good (VG) Good (G) Fair (F) Poor (P) 2)Protected/Managed Areas GIS Data: Attribute Fields: MANAGEMENT SCORES: Very Good (VG) Good (G) Fair (F) Poor (P)
Requirements for Running EAR Tool
EAR Tool: Desktop Version for ArcGIS
EAR Tool: Internet Server Version
Viability and Threat Models VIABILITY: Current conditions THREAT: Future conditions
Developing Future Threat Models SLR RESILIENCE
Conservation Management Status (CMS) 1.Intent: Are management objectives intended to secure biodiversity? 2.Duration: How long will the commitment to protection last? 3.Effective Management Potential (EMP): Are there available resources, adequate governance, and a planning framework for the management objectives to be achieved? (Higgins et al, 2007)
Intent Reserve is established to provide high-quality spawning, rearing and adult habitat for fishes. No fishing or diving allowed. Biodiversity Focus DurationThe fishing and diving ban is stated for 5 years.Short Term Effective Management Potential (EMP) Planning Framework: There is a management prescription in place to address instances of fishing and diving. Most to Full Potential Governance:The local island community holds regular meetings to evaluate reserve mgnt and resolve issues that arise. Resources:There is sufficient funding and staffing for a patrol boat. Evaluating Conservation Management Status (CMS) VG F
Calculating CMS: INTENT Based on IUCN categories: I, II, IV = Very Good (VG) V, VI = Good (G) III = Fair (F) Non-designated = Good (G)* * based on assumption that these areas are most likely set up for a sustainable conservation focus. Incidental Biodiversity Conservation Biodiversity Conservation Focus Sustainable Conservation Focus
Calculating CMS: DURATION Permanent declared protected areas = Very Good (VG) Short term declaration = Fair (F) Non-declared protected areas = Poor (P) for no commitment.
http://www.wdpa.org/ME/ Using ME survey data for calculating EMP 40+ methods applied to 100+ countries
Calculating CMS: Effective Management Potential GOVERNANCE PLANNING RESOURCES c
“Majority rules” If at least two of the three indicators share the same rating, then the occurrence receives that rating Exceptions: If any one indicator is rated as poor the CMS is rated poor. If one indicator is rated very good, one good, and one fair, then CMS is rated good. If two indicators are rated very good, and one fair, then CMS is rated good. Calculating CMS: Effective Management Potential
Output Reports: By Ecosystem/Species and Protected Area
Provides a GIS-based reporting framework for strategic conservation decision-making Permits the calculation, visualization, and reporting of eight conservation action classes Requires two input layers: Ecosystems/species and Protected/Managed areas Operates using pre-defined viability, threat, and management scores Flexible in that it does not require pre-determined methods for defining and ranking these scores EAR Summary
Support for EAR English Español www.eartool.org Download tool Sample datasets User manual Questions? firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.ebmtools.org/ecosystem-assessment-and-reporting-tool.html