CMP A Key to Indicator Selection

Indicators by definition “indicate” some underlying parameter. Thus, any indicator selection system fundamentally requires some kind of knowledge framework.

•Action Effectiveness Questions•Threat Status Questions

CMP

Introducing CAMLThe Conservation Actions

& Measures Library

Measuring the Effectiveness of State Wildlife Grants and

Wildlife Action Plans

The Need for Measures

Question: On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it that states develop a means of evaluating the effectiveness of projects funded with state wildlife grants?

Office of Mngmt & Budget (OMB) Answer:

15 !!!

Working Group

• Karl Hess (USFWS)• Ron Essig (USFWS)• Connie Young-Dubovsky (USFWS)• Amielle DeWan (DOW)• Tess Present (NAS)• Shelley Green (TNC)• Mary Klein (NatureServe)• Mathew Birnbaum (NFWF)• Bob Berg (Consultant)• Terra Rentz (AFWA/TWS)• Nick Salafsky (FOS)• Caroline Stem (FOS)

• Faith Balch (MN)• Dana Baxley (KY)• Tara Bergeson (WI)• Chris Burkett (VA)• Wendy Connally (TX)• Jenny Dickson (CT)• Mike Harris (GA)• Eric Rickerson (OR)• Tracey Tomajer (NY)• Mark Humpert (AFWA)• Priya Nanjappa (AFWA)

CMP

KEY

Direct Threat Result

Intermediate Results

Action Conservation Target

Gating caves and mines

Increased bat

populations?

Bat Cave Results Chain

CMP Bat Cave Results Chain

KEY

Direct Threat Result

Intermediate Results

Action Conservation Target

Gating caves and mines

Reduced disturbance by humans

Increased bat

populations?

Reduced disturbance by feral cats

?

CMP Bat Cave Results Chain

KEY

Direct Threat Result

Intermediate Results

Action Conservation Target

Gating caves and mines

Reduced disturbance by humans

Increased bat

populations?

Reduced disturbance by feral cats

?

Gating caves and mines

Reduced human access

Reduced disturbance by humans

Increased bat

populations

Reduced disturbance by feral cats

Reduced access by feral cats

i # breaches

i # distinct cat tracks

i # bats

i # juveniles

CMP Plover Results Chain

KEY

Direct Threat Result

Intermediate Results

Action Conservation Target

i # breaches

i # disturbed nests

# juveniles

Protecting Nesting Sites

Reduced human access

Reduced disturbance by humans

Increased plover nesting success

Reduced disturbance by predators

Reduced access by predators

i # eggs

i

CMP Generic Results Chain

KEY

Direct Threat Result

Intermediate Results

Action Conservation Target

Predator Exclosure

Reduced human access

Reduced disturbance by humans

Increased SGCN

populations

Reduced disturbance by predators

Reduced access by predators

Common State Actions

1. Land Protection2. Data Collection/Surveys3. Outreach to Key Resource Users4. Species Restoration 5. Management Planning6. Create New Habitat/Natural Processes7. Conservation Area Designation8. Training and Technical Assistance9. Land Use Planning10.Environmental Review11.Direct Management

Species Restoration

Definition of Action

Examples

“Generic” Results Chain

Crosswalk Table

Result Objective Measures Questions

Questionnaire

This is all most folks would see for

performance reportingpurposes!!

US Fish and Wildlife Service WILDLIFE TRACS Database

OMB Is Happy

“You should know that I have been able to fight for State Wildlife Grant budget compared to other grant programs because of this effort to show impact.”

- OMB Examiner

We Now Have Standard Results Chains for 11 Common State Conservation Actions…

1. Land Protection2. Data Collection/Surveys3. Outreach to Key Resource Users4. Species Restoration 5. Management Planning6. Create New Habitat/Natural Processes7. Conservation Area Designation8. Training and Technical Assistance9. Land Use Planning10.Environmental Review11.Direct Management

and for 8 Actions in Central Africa

1. Protected Area Management: Patrols2. Training & Capacity Building3. Partner Engagement General4. Wildlife Law Compliance & Enforcement5. Protected Area Mngmt: Designation & Gazettement6. Public Campaigns to Change Values & Behavior7. Surveys & Monitoring of Target & Threats Status8. Best Practice Guidelines for Extractive Industry

Wildlife Law Enforcement:Generic Results Chain

Share infowith courts

Work withlegal advisors

Engage courtpersonnel

Wildlife Law Enforcement:Generic Results Chain

Wildlife Law Enforcement:Generic Results Chain

Obj 1. Traffickers IdentifiedBy Y date, most/all large-scale wildlife trafficers in the region identified.

Ind 1. # / % of Traffickers Identified

Obj 5. Traffickers PunishedMost/all traffickers convicted serve full jail term / pay fines.

Ind 5, # / % of Traffickers Punished

CMP

TM Adaptive Management Softwarefor Conservation Projects

Actions as the Basic Unit of Learning

Actions are:• Unit of work• More likely to

share failures

CMP These Actions Fit in Larger Classification

CMP These Actions Fit in Larger Classification

IUCN – CMP Actions Classification: Levels 1 & 2

1. Land/Water Protection 5. Law & Policy1.1 Site/Area Protection 5.1 Legislation1.2 Resource & Habitat Protection 5.2 Policies & Regulations

2. Land/Water Management 5.3 Private Sector Standards & Codes2.1 Site/Area Management 5.4 Compliance & Enforcement2.2 Invasive/Problematic Species Control 6. Livelihood, Economic & Other Incentives2.3 Habitat & Natural Process Restoration 6.1 Linked Enterprises & Livelihood Alternatives

3. Species Management 6.2 Substitution3.1 Species Management 6.3 Market Forces3.2 Species Recovery 6.4 Conservation Payments3.3 Species Re-Introduction 6.5 Non-Monetary Values3.4 Ex-situ Conservation 7. External Capacity Building

4. Education & Awareness 7.1 Institutional & Civil Society Development4.1 Formal Education 7.2 Alliance & Partnership Development4.2 Training 7.3 Conservation Finance4.3 Awareness & Communications

CMP Just Like Biology Has “Type Specimens” We Need “Generic” Actions & Measures

CMP Introducing CAML: The Conservation Actions & Measures Library

CMP Threats Indicate Status & Effectiveness

CMP Viability Equivalent of Threat Status= Guide to Standard Threat Indicators

Figure 1. Example of Threat Indicators Used to Define Threat Severity Severity Dimensions: Low Med High Very High PIKE (adjusted for low numbers)

0 1-4% 5-10% > 10%

signs of poaching none in country none in region some in area lots in area

Scope SeverityVery High: The threat is likely to be pervasive in its scope, affecting the target across all or most (71-100%) of its occurrence/population. High: The threat is likely to be widespread in its scope, affecting the target across much (31-70%) of its occurrence/population. Medium: The threat is likely to be restricted in its scope, affecting the target across some (11-30%) of its occurrence/population. Low: The threat is likely to be very narrow in its scope, affecting the target across a small proportion (1-10%) of its occurrence/population.

Very High: Within the scope, the threat is likely to destroy or eliminate the target, or reduce its population by 71-100% within ten years or three generations. High: Within the scope, the threat is likely to seriously degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 31-70% within ten years or three generations. Medium: Within the scope, the threat is likely to moderately degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 11-30% within ten years or three generations. Low: Within the scope, the threat is likely to only slightly degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 1-10% within ten years or three generations.