ConsNet Systematic Conservation Planning Primer

M12: Implementation of Conservation Plan

Learning Objectives: This module discusses the practical implementation of conservation plans. In previous modules, systematic conservation planning has been described as the steps and strategies of planning for a conservation area network. Learners will draw from different real-life examples of conservation plan implementation and be asked to synthesize learning in a manner which critically compares and contrasts different plans and their utilization of systematic conservation planning strategies.

The final goal of conservation planning is the implementation of a plan in the field. This is often not easy.

Ultimately planning decisions must be sociopolitical decisions about land use—conservation biologists and scientists must step beyond “pure” science to address such issues.

The decisions that are made depend critically on the local context.

Perspectives from local residents and other such stakeholders are critical: this is why stakeholders must be included from the beginning – see M3: Stakeholder Identification and Involvement.

Typically there are conflicts of interests that must be navigated.

There is always a monetary budget that limits what can be done.

Because conservation planning exercises often need to be tailored to the planning context, this module will largely rely on examples to give an overall perspective of the issues encountered during attempts to implement conservation plans.

Very few conservation plans have been fully implemented—the plan for Tasmania by Kirkpatrick is a notable exception (Kirkpatrick et al. 1983) —see Example 12.1.

Crucial to plan implementation success is sustained involvement of conservation decision support specialists in all parts of the planning process.

Keeping conservation area selection protocols simple and transparent helps implementation.

Emphasis should be given to the fact that systematic conservation planning exercises are based on well-tested methods.

Kirkpatrick’s plan was also historically important because it involved the first use of complementarity to select conservation areas.

However, it included some arbitrary scoring to indicate the importance of the different species used as surrogates.

Example 12.1

Kirkpatrick’s Plan for Tasmania (Kirkpatrick et al. 1983)

The analysis used data on 25 regionally endemic and endangered plant species occurring in the central east coast region of Tasmania. (These were the biodiversity surrogates.) There were 60 such species found in a survey of the region but the other 35 had substantial populations in at least two conservation areas and were excluded from the analysis. The goal was to recommend a set of additional conservation areas for the remaining 25 species of concern. The planning region was divided into 460 grid cells, each about 1 sq km. The 25 species were sorted into four groups: (1) not in conservation areas and largely confined to the planning region; (2) poorly represented in conservation areas and largely confined to the planning region; (3) not in conservation areas and more common outside the planning region; and (4) poorly represented in conservation areas and more common outside the planning region. Scores for each grid cell were compounded according to the species it contained, species in group (1) scoring 100, group (2) species scoring 50, group (3) species scoring 25, and group (4) species scoring 10—note that these numbers were arbitrary. Complementarity was introduced when it was assumed that, once the highest scoring grid cell had been conserved, all remaining grid scores must be adjusted downward by taking out the species that were abundant or common in the conserved grid cell. This step was iterated to select additional areas for conservation until unselected grid cells had scores of less than 30. The result, consisting of seven priority areas, is shown in Figure 12.1. The grid cells were then buffered by 0.5 km and their boundaries were topographically adjusted (Pressey 2002); the buffering and adjustment corresponds to refinement of the initial plan—see M10: Network Refinement Protocol.

In the early 1980s, the Tasmanian Forestry Commission agreed not to log the seven priority areas. About 1989, the boundaries of the new Douglas–Apsley National Park were adjusted to include three of the areas. By 1995, most of another area was within the Hardings Falls Forest Reserve. The remaining areas were reserved later in the 1990s as part of a Regional Forest Agreement between Tasmania and the Australian Government. Kirkpatrick, who was involved in negotiating the last agreement, explained this success: “The major factor in acceptance was the desire of the forestry people to appear scientific in their conservation efforts . . . Everyone communicates with everyone else in Tasmania – I knew all the protagonists well. I think that the logic of the process, and its minimalism, also appealed" (Pressey 2002).

Figure 12.1

What may be implementable may change from year to year—see Example 12.2.

Budgets and other constraints may change.

Budgets for each planning period are always subject to general economic factors (e.g., fluctuations in local, state, national, and global economies).

As biodiversity-related issues gain more popular interest, there may be more opportunities to enact ambitious plans.

Stakeholders may change.

Political changes may bring in new stakeholders with legal authority to modify or even reject plans (e.g., as determined by election results).

Stakeholders may also change as plans are modified to take larger or smaller regions into account (at different spatial scales there are different stakeholders).

Preferences may change.

Technological developments may generate more or less need for some resource (e.g., land use).

More biological information may change design criteria and conservation goals—see M6: Conservation Targets and Goals.

Once again, as general interest increases towards biodiversity-related issues, there may be more opportunities for conservation.

Example 12.2

Conservation Planning in New South Wales (Pressey 1998)

Complementarity was used in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, in the late 1990s in policy decisions to prioritize areas for conservation. The C-Plan software package was used in negotiations between seven stakeholder groups: the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council, the forestry industry, the forestry workers union, State Forests of New South Wales, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, conservation activists, and the Commonwealth of Australia (Pressey 1998).

C-Plan uses irreplaceability to prioritize sites –see M8: Place Prioritization. A total of 2.4 million ha of state owned land and several million ha of private land within eastern NSW were analyzed. The region includes the species-rich remnants of Australia’s Gondwana heritage, important to conservationists, but also covered by lucrative lumber production forests crucial to the timber industry. To facilitate negotiations, the total plan area was divided into eleven different regions and each region was divided into approximately 250 ha cells (Pressey 1998). A large set of biodiversity surrogates (mostly related to forest types) was used in the analysis in 1996. Four conservation scenarios were distinguished which allowed logging of 100 %, 70 %, 50 %, and 30 % of the 1995 sawlog volumes – see Figure 12.2. The final decision led to an agreement to establish nine new strict conservation areas (a total of 250,000 ha of which 20% were cells with high irreplaceability) and temporarily protected conservation areas (a total of 816,000 ha).

Following what was judged a successful planning process, a year later in 1997 C-plan was again used to guide negotiations for 120,000 ha of the 816,000 ha that had been deferred from 1996 in southeastern New South Wales to the temporarily protected conservation areas. However, unlike 1996 when there had been an agreement on pre-established conservation goals, in 1997 no such accord could be reached. Ultimately, the targets used differed significantly from those initially proposed. Moreover, the four logging scenarios considered in the negotiations only met 40 -50 % of these targets (Finkel 1998a, b).

While 1996 saw a successful use of systematic conservation planning, and even 1997 saw a partial success, the 1998 negotiations over 10 million ha in the northeast of New South Wales were a failure. Forests in this area were better studied, and the ecological data set for the region was more reliable than those used in previous studies. As a result, well-established conservation targets existed for many of the surrogates that were used (such as 200 forest ecosystems, 800 endangered plant species, and 140 animal species). However, the results of the C-plan assessment were ignored in favor of timber industry interests. Disregarding the recommendations of conservation planners, policy makers passed a bill that protected half the area that planners calculated as being necessary for adequate surrogate representation. The plan only met 30 % of the representation targets for the species with highest conservation priority; and only a sparse 7 % for the Hasting's River mouse (Pseudomys oralis) which is endangered. It allowed the timber industry to continue logging with its current quota for 20 years, double of what was recommended (Finkel 1998a, b).

Figure 12.2

(a)

75 % Forest Type Targets

(b)

85 % Forest Type

(c)

85 % Forest Type + Faunal Species

Key

Existing conservation areas are in dark blue. Grey areas were not considered in the analysis. Irreplaceability values:

100 %: dark red;

80 -99 %: pink;

60 -79 %: dark orange;

40 -59 %: pale orange;

20 -39 %: dark yellow;

> 0 -19 %: pale yellow;

0: white.

Targets for surrogates are as indicated.

A worry is that systematic conservation planning results often get ignored at the last minute—see Example 12.3.

Political considerations often intervene to prevent implementation of conservation plans.

This is why local support for conservation plans is essential for implementation success.

An older generation of conservation planners often resist systematic methods because of unfamiliarity which generates skepticism.

There may also be resistance from different governmental departments trying to protect territory.

Example 12.3

Grand Kankakee Marsh National Wildlife Refuge (Clark and Slusher 2000)

In 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US-FWS) began planning for the Grand Kankakee Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge was intended to preserve 12 140 ha within the fragmented Kankakee River Watershed wetlands which historically ranged over 400 000 ha of northeastern Illinois and northwestern Indiana (Clark and Slusher 2000). Determining what areas should be included in the conservation area network was done in two stages. The first stage was a non-quantitative process in which the stakeholders – ecologists from the Nature Conservancy, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, representatives of the Indiana GAP Analysis Project, and the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs – met in workshops to determine areas of preliminary focus for the proposed reserve network. GIS satellite images were used to select twenty areas based on eight criteria: (1) inclusion of the Kankakee River corridor and corridors between existing managed areas; (2) representation of the three primary ecosystems of the conservation plan area (prairie, wetland, and oak savanna); (3) presence of threatened and endangered species; (4) distance to, and connectivity between, existing managed areas; (5) overlap with federally endangered species habitat and area-sensitive migratory grassland bird habitat; (6) anthropogenic features; (7) threat of development; and (8) ratio of existing to restorable habitat. A formal multi-criteria analysis (see M11: Multi-Criteria Analysis) would have rationalized this process but was not used.

In the second stage, C-Plan was used to prioritize cells in the study area. Prioritization was based on the representation of six surrogates: (i) federal endangered and threatened species (considered collectively); (ii) state endangered and threatened species (considered collectively); (iii) rare community types; (iv) woodland habitat; (v) existence of palustrine (wet/marsh lands) and restorable wetlands; and (vi) occurrence of the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) habitat—this species was supposed to be a surrogate for grassland dependent bird species in general. The targets for each of the six features were 100 %, 75 %, 50 %, 5 000 ha, 5 000 ha, and 100 %, respectively. Of the 1 914 cells accorded an irreplaceability value of 1 (the highest priority value) by C-Plan, only 126 were included in the final twenty conservation focus areas selected during the first stage by expert panels (see Figure 12.3a,b). This amounted to dismissing the use of algorithmic selection procedures, known to produce reliable results, in favor of intuitive procedures (even if, in this instance, algorithm use was guided by local and regional expertise).

Based on these analyses 65 highly irreplaceable sites covering 4053 ha (33% of the total proposed planning area of 12,140 ha) that fell within two of the original focus areas of stage 1 were recommended to be reserved. After approving the forward progress of the project the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hired a refuge manager to be stationed in northern Indiana (Clark, personal communication). However, a concurrent study of the Kankakee Watershed area done by the US Army Corps of Engineers focused more on implementing structural work in the area to solve increasing drainage problems with less emphasis on landscape-scale wetland restoration. This, combined with changes in political agendas and the enactment of county ordinances hostile to conservation, has led to a delay in the project's realization (Clark , personal communication). When the final policy considerations took place, they were predominantly divorced from the C-Plan results (Clark, personal communication).

Figure 12.3

(a)

First Stage Conservation Focus Area

(b)

Area of Conservation Focus Areas 13 and 14 with Irreplaceability Value of 1

(Sites that were “set aside” were disregarded).

Plans that ignore local land tenure customs have very little chance of implementation—see Example 12.4.

This is a sensitive issue in many regions because of the long history of colonization (typically, with negative association) and its aftermath.

Colonial administrations often denied longstanding historical land tenure arrangements (Gadgil and Guha 1992).

Urban elites have a history of denial and disregard for the interests of rural populations which rely on resources from the land.

However, it should not be assumed that rural customs are always sustainable and desirable—with population increases and advances in technology, traditions that were once sustainable may no longer be so.

Special problems are faced in contexts where indigenous nations have largely been systematically exterminated (e.g., North America) or denied traditional lands (e.g., Australia).

Conservation NGOs are beginning to acknowledge the legitimacy of claims from indigenous and other local groups—this is a welcome development.

However, there are also instances where this acknowledgement is lacking (see Dowie 2005).

As discussed previously, all such groups must be included as stakeholders from the beginning of the planning process.

Example 12.4

Conservation Planning in Guyana (Richardson and Funk 1999)

Guyana, with a total area of 215,000 sq km, is unique in that it is the only country in the Americas without a system of protected areas (Richardson and Funk 1999). The human population is 800,000 with 80 % distributed mostly along the coast. Guyana includes biologically diverse environments such as white sand forests, savannas, and Amazonian rainforests that are only beginning to be exploited for their natural resources. Facing international pressure to harvest its forests and minerals in a sustainable fashion after democratic elections in the early 1990s, the Government of Guyana ratified a National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) in 1994 and agreed to initiate the creation of a conservation area network to represent the major ecosystems of the country.

A database with 16,500 records on 312 species covering ten taxonomic groups of plants and animals was compiled in collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution. These 312 species were used as biodiversity surrogates. However, due to a lack of adequate data for the southeastern region of Guyana caused by border disputes with Suriname , this portion of the country was not represented in the database. Characteristic of study areas with few roads, the data set was biased around airstrips and rivers. To compensate, data were modeled to obtain predicted distribution areas of species with at least 10 records. (Data treatment includes modeling to fill in species distributions, when there is presence-only data, and often with bias – see M4: Data Compilation, Assessment, and Treatment).

After mapping the relevant portion of Guyana into a total of 941 (16 x 16 sq km) cells, conservation targets were set to 15 % of the predicted distribution area for each species. Using C-plan, out of the 941 areas, 140 were selected with 36 having an irreplaceability value of 1 ( Richardson, personal communication). A vulnerability index was then calculated by determining the proximity of each cell to a forestry concession (land designated for the harvesting of trees), a main threat to conservation goals. (Threats can be minimized by placing conservation areas far from human population centers, extractive activities, roads, etc. – see M9: Vulnerability and Persistence Analysis). A GIS overlay was used to highlight areas of both high vulnerability and high irreplaceability (though this could also have been done using multicriteria analysis – see M11: Multi-Criteria Analysis).It illuminated high priority areas in the central, tall, evergreen areas of the country along with highly irreplaceable and mildly vulnerable areas around Kaieteur Falls (see Figure 12.4).

Currently, Guyana has a single national park of 11 ha around Kaieteur Falls that preserves the scenic Potaro River waterfall (Richardson and Funk 1999). Following the first step in creating a conservation area network, the Guyana government requested assistance from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through the World Bank to create a National Protected Areas System (NPAS). (The C-plan study for the country was supposed to constitute the first step towards establishing the NPAS.) Based on the analysis, in 1999 the Guyana government designated two areas (the Kaieteur falls area and one within the Kanuku Mountains) to serve as its foundation and passed a bill to expand Kaieteur National Park from 11 ha to 580 sq km.

However, the Guyanan government has since stalled on plans to develop the National Protected Areas System (NPAS).

Surprisingly, the failure to act was not due to lack of funds or lack of interest by the government (Richardson, personal communication). The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and other financiers were willing to procure approximately $9,000,000 for the realization of the NPAS in the two areas around the Kaitieur Falls and the Kanuku Mountains that were identified for initial funding. However, making use of the GEF funds was paralyzed by unresolved issues about the tenure rights of Amerindian communities residing in the region and other political issues. Subsequently, the government of Guyana did not meet the conditions for the grant, and after a few years with no progress towards resolution, the GEF withdrew its original offer (Richardson, personal communication). This example highlights the importance of involving all relevant stakeholders in the planning and implementation process.

Figure 12.4

Implementation often brings many considerations other than biodiversity representation and persistence to the fore—see Example 12.5.

Public participation, often necessary when governmental plans are implemented, often brings new criteria into play.

Problems from these may be avoided by including stakeholders from the general public right from the beginning of the planning process – see M3: Stakeholder Identification and Involvement.

Public education and outreach almost always emerge as important tasks.

Implementation can get bogged down in regulations emerging from the administrative context.

The actual designation of conservation areas may sometimes seem a rather small part of the entire implementation exercise—see Example 12.5.

It will often take a long time to carry out implementation; even longer to determine if the planning has been effective.

Example 12.5

California Channel Islands (Airamé et al. 2003)

In 1999, a group of stakeholders involved with the California Channel Islands region formed a group called the Marine Reserves Working Group, or MRWG, to develop a conservation area network of marine reserves for the Channel Islands. In addition, a Science Advisory Panel (SAP) and a socioeconomic panel were formed to advise the working group, focusing on ecological and physical data, and economic and industrial data, respectively. The goals of the conservation area network were organized into five categories (Airamé et al. 2003):

Ecosystem biodiversity: “to protect representative and unique marine habitats, ecological processes, and populations of interests.”

Sustainable fisheries: “to achieve sustainable fisheries by integrating marine reserve into fisheries management.”

Economic viability: “to maintain long-term socioeconomic viability while minimizing short-term socioeconomic losses to all users and dependent parties.”

Natural and cultural heritage: “to maintain areas of visitor, spiritual, and recreational opportunities which include cultural and ecological features and their associate values.”

Education: “to foster stewardship of the marine environment by providing educational opportunities to increase awareness and encourage responsible use of resources.”

The ecological considerations included the following:

(1) The SAP determined that 30 -50 % percentage of the conservation areas were to be set aside to achieve the conservation and fisheries goal.

(2) For biogeographic representation, the SAP determined 1 -4 conservation areas (30 -50 % of the total area) should be designated for each of the three biogeographic regions represented in the planning area (the Oregonian Province, the Californian Province , and the transitional region between the two).

(3) For habitat representation and heterogeneity, the SAP recommended a multidimensional habitat measure that utilized depth, exposure, substrate type in different sediments, dominant plant communities (providing habitat to different types of birds, seals, and sea lions), and additional features (rock features near and off shore).

(4) Vulnerable marine habitats of the region which mainly consisted of eelgrasses were recommended by the SAP to include at least 4 of the 10 eelgrass regions of the Channel Islands.

(5) Taking into account species of special concern, or those with critical life-history stages within the Channel Islands, the SAP weighted the different coastlines and sediments accordingly.

(6) With respect to protecting the exploitable species (e.g., due to the fishing industry) the SAP decided that the range of habitats selected by the other criteria was sufficient.

(7) Ecosystem functioning and linkages were not taken into account due to the difficulty of assessment and relation to network design.

(8) Ecosystem services were considered and the SAP recommended that monitoring programs of ecosystems be included in the reserves to track changes over time.

(9) The SAP recommended a minimum conservation area network size of approximately 36 -54 % of the planning region and placing multiple conservation areas in each of the biogeographic regions to take into account human threats and natural catastrophes.

(10) Finally, size and connectivity were to be established using the previous criteria.

In the planning process, existing conservation areas were not taken into account. If the existing conservation areas were included after the potential network was compiled, they were to be integrated; if not, they were to be removed. The SITES software package (which uses a simulated annealing algorithm) was used to select a set of areas considered representative of the surrogates used in the analysis. This model does not make explicit the spatial relations between the selected areas, but uses a boundary length parameter to control boundary length of the selected areas. With targets of 30 %, 40 % and 50 % for the ecological surrogates, the irreplaceability of each potential conservation area (grid cell) was determined, with irreplaceability being estimated by the frequency with which a grid cell was selected. Cells selected 70%, 80%, and 90% of the time during the algorithm runs were considered to have high conservation value.

With these data, SAP offered the working group (MRWG) 10 different spatially explicit conservation area network designs.“ The most dissimilar scenarios with the highest conservation value were chosen for consideration to provide a range of feasible options” for the working group (Airamé et al. 2003, s180). The MRWG was then provided the opportunity to simulate the different network design options through an interactive GIS with socioeconomic information included. This was considered necessary because of the importance to have flexibility with respect to available options for different conservation area network, given the sociopolitical context that must be navigated whenever a conservation area network is implemented.

Continuing implementation is currently occurring (2006) for the Channel Islands Marine Reserve (http://channelislands.noaa.gov). Under the supervision of the National Marine Sanctuary Plan (NSMP), the Channel Islands Marine Reserve and Sanctuary undergoes continuous revision of its management and implementation plan. While the implementation plan goes back to 1983, the new implementation plan (Draft Management Plan) functions to: (1) guide achievement of sanctuary goals; and (2) inform sanctuary stakeholders about the Channel Islands Marine Reserve and Sanctuary, the state and federal regulations on the sanctuary, and the implementation and management procedures for the following five years. The Draft Management Plan has two parts. The first part contains information on the Channel Islands Sanctuary “environment and resources, staffing and administration, regulations and boundaries, priority management issues and the actions proposed to address them, and performance measures." The second part, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), contains “detailed information on the greater sanctuary region, presents a range of alternatives for modified and new sanctuary regulations, and provides environmental and socioeconomic impact analyses of those regulatory alternatives.”

The implementation plan has to go through a review process including public “scoping” meetings in which issues are discussed with the public. Next, significant issues and implementation plans are prioritized and regulations may be revised to address issues. Finally, the final draft of the implementation plans and regulations are drawn. During this process, sanctuary staff work with the public, the Advisory Council on the sanctuary, the National Marine Sanctuary Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Congressional leaders, federal, state, and local government agencies, and biologists.

Under the implementation plan there are ten policies guiding the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary.

Public Awareness and Understanding: promoting understanding and education of natural and maritime heritage resources. This is accomplished through community and regional collaborations on education.

Boundary Evaluation: describing the process by which agencies will evaluate changes to the sanctuary boundaries.

Performance Evaluation: a continuous and routine evaluation of performance measures to demonstrate progress towards goals.

Marine Zoning: zoning is regarded as a type of resource protection for the sanctuary. This includes the potential establishment of conservation areas within the sanctuary.

Water Quality: support for monitoring projects by outside parties, facilitation of public discussion/investigation, education, outreach materials, promoting sustainable water practices, collaboration and partnerships.

Emergency Response and Enforcement: strategies and actions preparing for and responding to emergencies, ensuring compliance with regulations, vessel and aircraft surveillance, and provision of agency staff and enforcers.

Maritime Heritage Resources: “monitoring and inventorying maritime heritage resources sites, developing exhibits and outreach materials, upgrading the sanctuary’s maritime heritage resource website, and working with members of the Chumash Native American community to provide education and outreach about Chumash heritage."

Emerging Issues: identifying and addressing future issues that may arise in terms of resource and sanctuary protection. Sanctuary staff must be competent to identify, research, monitor and address issues and threats.

Operations: oversight of administrative and operational activities.

Sanctuary Regulations: regulations must be kept clear and up-to-date, and consistency should be achieved across local, state and federal levels when addressing and responding to resource issues and threats.

Throughout, it should be remembered that conservation planning is a dynamic process and planning exercises should periodically be repeated because of changing contexts—see M13: Periodic Network Reassessment.

Lessons learned from the failures and successes of other scenarios within the conservation planning community should inform future plan implementation strategies.