• This is a version of my full viability assessment presentation. I break the exercise for developing a viability assessment into three breakout group tasks: – Developing KEAs – Developing Indicators – Developing Rating Criteria • I usually present, do a breakout exercise, have teams report back/peer review, present pt 2, do breakout 2, have teams report back, etc. • This seems to help teams work through the viability assessment without becoming overwhelmed with new concepts. • The examples are NOT the same examples as in the Greening Australia PowerPoint from 5/2006. Feel free to switch them. The references to Key Attribute Categories are from the KEA Table.pdf (or found in the slides in this presentation). • Any questions, email me [email protected]Read Me
Transcript
• This is a version of my full viability assessment presentation. I break the exercise for developing a viability assessment into three breakout group tasks:
– Developing KEAs
– Developing Indicators
– Developing Rating Criteria
• I usually present, do a breakout exercise, have teams report back/peer review, present pt 2, do breakout 2, have teams report back, etc.
• This seems to help teams work through the viability assessment without becoming overwhelmed with new concepts.
• The examples are NOT the same examples as in the Greening Australia PowerPoint from 5/2006. Feel free to switch them. The references to Key Attribute Categories are from the KEA Table.pdf (or found in the slides in this presentation).
Approach viability assessment as an iterative process
Project-level planning & measures within The Nature Conservancy
Ground Rules• Participate
• Don’t Dominate
• Tough Love… but
• “Boss-Free Zone”
• Everyone advocates; project team decides
• Cell phones off; no side conversations
• Have Fun!
Why Assess Viability?
(1) To clearly define targets (esp. ecological systems)
(2) Science-based foundation for establishing current status of a target and setting clear desired future condition (goals) linked to target ecology,
(3) A framework to identify specific stresses to the ecological integrity of each target and evaluate how these threats disrupt specific ecological attributes,
(4) Assist in developing and implementing focused strategies at the right magnitude to meet conservation goals
(5) Guide the design of effective monitoring (abatement) and measures of success (viability/integrity), and the identification of critical research needs.
What is “viability”?
ViabilityViability for a conservation target means:
The target is resistant to change in its structure and composition in the face of external stresses
The target is resilient – able to recover – upon experiencing occasional severe stress
This results from critical processes and interactions related to • biological composition, structure, and function• physical environmental conditions and regimes
TNC’s definition of viability emphasizes the idea that key ecological attributes must: “…remain intact and functioning within their natural ranges of variation.”
• Identify the “Key Ecological Attributes” for each conservation target
• Identify one or more “Indicators” for each factor
• Identify critical conservation “Thresholds” and “Conservation Goals” for these indicators
• “Rate” target integrity using the indicators to assess target status
Viability Assessment:
Process
• Key Ecological AttributesKey Ecological Attributes– Critical component of target’s life history, physical or biological processes, composition, structure– Clearly define target– Limit its distribution– Determine its natural variation over space and time– On a time scale of 50-100+ years
• Viability IndicatorsViability Indicators– Measurable entities used to assess the status of Key Ecological Attribute(s).
• Indicator Rating CategoriesIndicator Rating Categories– Criteria to enable objective status assessments
Viability Assessment:
Fundamentals
FocalTarget
Category Key Attribute IndicatorCurrentStatus
Example - 1st Pass
• Grassland focal target identified• Fire regime = Key Attribute (Landscape Context)• Fire frequency = Indicator• Dense woody cover suggests not enough fire• Current status deemed not viable - assigned “Fair”
FairGrassland Target
LandscapeContext
Fire regime
Fire frequency
Indicator RatingsBold=Current Italics=Desired
FocalTarget
Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair GoodVery Good
grassland - Type X
Landscape Context
fire regime fire frequency not
enough fire
1st Pass - table
• 1st pass results within Indicator Rating table
2nd Pass
Indicator RatingsBold=Current Italics=Desired
FocalTarget
Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair GoodVery Good
grassland - Type X
Landscape Context
fire regime fire frequency
not
enough fire
grassland - Type X
Landscape Context
fire regimefire frequency
> 10 years
5-10 years
• Phone call to local grassland expert indicates natural fire frequency of 5-10 years
Indicator RatingsBold=Current Italics=Desired
FocalTarget
Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair GoodVery Good
grassland - Type X
Landscape Context
fire regime fire frequency not
enough fire
grassland - Type X
Landscape Context
fire regime fire frequency > 10 years
5-10 years
grassland - Type X
Landscape Context
fire regime% grassland with 5-10 yr fire return
<25% 25-50% 51-75% >75%
• % area burned at acceptable frequency deemed important
• Decision made > 50% area = viable key attribute = “Good”
3rd Pass
Indicator RatingsBold=Current Italics=Desired
FocalTarget
Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair GoodVery Good
grassland - Type X
Landscape Context
fire regime fire frequency not
enough fire
grassland - Type X
Landscape Context
fire regime fire frequency > 10 years
5-10 years
grassland - Type X
Landscape Context
fire regime% grassland with 5-10 yr fire return
<25% 25-50% 51-75% >75%
• The project team could have settled on any one of these 3 alternatives as part of their initial 5S plan
Flexible level of detail
Indicator RatingsBold=Current Italics=Desired
FocalTarget
Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good
grassland - Type X
Size
Size/extent of characteristic communities / ecosystems
aerial extent in acres
> 100,000
acres
How important is it to fill out all ratings in this case where Current & Desired
status is Very Good?
Probably Not Important!-Unless grassland area is threatened by large-scale habitat destruction. -In this case, determining the Fair rating might guide efforts to determine how much to save
Incomplete is OK!
Indicator RatingsBold=Current Italics=Desired
FocalTarget
Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair GoodVery Good
Catches from the
Sea
From Viability assessment in Indonesian village
• Catches from the Sea identified as a focal target for fish caught for local consumption and sale
• Key attribute & indicator selected• Current status considered not viable (Fair)
XPopulation size
Fish catch per day
Size
Indicator RatingsBold=Current Italics=Desired
FocalTarget
Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair GoodVery Good
Catches from the
SeaSize
Population size
fish catch per day
catch = 0
1 - 30 strings of fish
• Interviews indicate current harvest < 30 strings of fish
• Ten years ago, harvest yielded up to 200 strings of fish
• > 100 considered Very Good• 31-100 considered Good
> 100 strings of fish
31-100 strings of fish
From Viability assessment in Indonesian village
General Guidance
• View main purpose as capturing the current state of knowledge
• Don’t worry about information gaps• Don’t focus on filling out all indicator ratings!• Can return during later planning stages to add more
detail (if necessary)• Prioritize filling gaps for key attributes based on:
– Level of concern (poor status and/or link to high rank threats), or
– Link to conservation actions
Accept uncertainty!
Common Issues & Recommendations
• Key attributes framed in terms of stressKey attributes framed in terms of stress – Key attributes should be framed in terms of natural characteristics
and dynamics - they should be the inverse of stresses, e.g. % native cover not % invasives
• Relating key attributes to size/condition/landscape contextRelating key attributes to size/condition/landscape context– Each key attribute can be assigned to S, C, or LC, but don’t get too
bogged down in figuring out which one• Ratings based on “the best that is left”Ratings based on “the best that is left”
– Ratings should be based on “objective” standards for long-term persistence not on feasibility or the best that is left
• Real data versus expert opinionReal data versus expert opinion– Ultimately the goal is to collect actual data on each indicator and
rate it accordingly. However, most projects will use expert opinion and will gradually phase in monitoring over time.
• “Minimum dynamic area” is typically based on two factors: severe historic disturbance regime & home range for nested animal species
• There’s probably an inverse relationship between “Size” & “Buffer”– e.g. a large system occurrence needs a small buffer & vice-versa
• Be wary of “Connectivity” or “Habitat” as key ecological attributes without considering “connectivity” or “habitat” for what…
• While historical information can provide a useful benchmark, don’t get hung up on the system’s historical condition (e.g. presettlement) -- instead consider what species & communities we care about today, and what is needed for them to persist
• Nested targets (ecoregional or locally important) may also provide insights into key attributes
Helpful Hints
Key Ecological Attributes: What Are They?
• Critical component of target’s life history, physical or biological processes, composition, structure
• Clearly define target
• Limit its distribution
• Determine its natural variation over space and time
• Species Composition/AbundanceSpecies Composition/Abundance• Keystone SpeciesKeystone Species• Keystone Functional Groups/GuildsKeystone Functional Groups/Guilds• Characteristic SpeciesCharacteristic Species• Characteristic Ecological Communities Characteristic Ecological Communities & Seral Stages& Seral Stages• Horizontal Arrangement of Ecological Horizontal Arrangement of Ecological Communities and Seral StagesCommunities and Seral Stages• Vertical Structure of Ecological Vertical Structure of Ecological Communities and Seral StagesCommunities and Seral Stages• Size/Age/Gender Structure of Size/Age/Gender Structure of Populations within EcologicalPopulations within Ecological Communities and Seral StagesCommunities and Seral Stages
Attribute Categories
• Select one target from your project area (stratify the target into smaller subgroups if you think you need to).
• Develop one key ecological attribute for each of three different attribute categories
Breakout Group Instructions: Selecting Key
Attributes Task 1
Time:Time: 30 Minutes
• Did you stratify your target?• In which attribute categories did you select key
ecological attributes?• What are the key attributes you selected?• Why is each attribute “key” for the target?
Breakout Group Instructions: Selecting Key Attributes Very Briefly Report back on:
Time:Time: 10 Minutes/Team
Indicators: What ARE Indicators?
• Need to be able to say what field information you used, to assess integrity
• Some key ecological attributes may be too complex to measure easily (directly)
• Need to identify one or more specific “indicators” to use, to assess the status of each key attribute
Indicators are measurable attributes that inform us of the status of a key ecological factor
Why Work With “Indicators”?
Ecologically relevantEcologically relevant (i.e., an accurate and direct assessment of key ecological factor status)
Sensitive to changeSensitive to change in the key ecological factor, either through degradation or restoration.
Sensitive to human-caused stressSensitive to human-caused stress to the key ecological factor and able to register incremental changes in stress.
Anticipatory Anticipatory andand long term long term (i.e., indicate degradation before serious harm has occurred).
MeasurableMeasurable (i.e., capable of being defined and measured using a standard procedure with low measurement error).
Socially relevantSocially relevant (i.e., of obvious value to and observable by all important stakeholders).
Cost-effectiveCost-effective (i.e., provides maximum information per unit effort).
Viability Assessment:
Indicators should be…
Indicator RatingsBold=Current Italics=Desired
FocalTarget
Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair GoodVery Good
grassland - Type X
Landscape Context
fire regime fire frequency not
enough fire
grassland - Type X
Landscape Context
fire regime fire frequency > 10 years
5-10 years
grassland - Type X
Landscape Context
fire regime% grassland with 5-10 yr fire return
<25% 25-50% 51-75% >75%
Example
• Key Ecological Attribute –Connectivity between habitat fragments
• Viability Indicators –Fragstats connectivity index
• Identify one indicator for each key ecological attribute from previous exercise
Breakout Group Instructions: Selecting Indicators
Task 2
Time:Time: 30 Minutes
A good indicator is…A good indicator is…• Ecologically relevantEcologically relevant• Sensitive to changeSensitive to change• Sensitive to human-caused Sensitive to human-caused
stressstress• Anticipatory Anticipatory andand long term long term• MeasurableMeasurable• Socially relevantSocially relevant• Cost-effectiveCost-effective
• Which key ecological attributes did you select indicators for?
• What indicators were selected?• Do these indicators qualify as a “good” indicators?
Breakout Group Instructions: Selecting Indicators
Very Briefly Report Back:
Time:Time: 10 Minutes/Team
Viability Assessment: Thresholds and Ratings
Minimum Integrity Threshol
ds
Note:Note: The line between “good” “good” and “fair”“fair”
Thresholds and Ratings
• Key Ecological Attribute –Juvenile recruitment
• Viability Indicators –Average capture rates in rotary trap
• Indicator Ratings– PoorPoor:: 0 - 0.1 fish caught / hour– FairFair:: 0.11 - 0.25 fish caught / hour– GoodGood:: 0.26 - 1.0 fish caught / hour– Very GoodVery Good:: > 1 fish caught / hour
Example: Chinook Salmon at Cosumnes River
Example: Ecological Integrity
Assessment
Develop indicator rating criteria for one indicator (based on your collective expert opinion) using the categories:
– Very Good– Good– Fair– Poor
• Qualitative ratings are OK! (e.g. Poor = “Lots of instream barriers”, “not enough fire” etc.)
• At a minimum -- define the difference between fair and good categories.
Breakout Group Instructions: Indicator Rating Criteria
Time: Time: 15 minutes
Task 3
• Which indicator did you develop rating criteria for?• What are ratings for “poor”, “fair”, “good” and “very
good”?• Is the rating criteria based on some range of
natural variability for that indicator?• Can you (did you) rank “current status” and/or
• At least one Key Ecological Attribute and one Indicator for each Focal Target (or major stratification)
• Describe current Indicator Rating in sufficient detail that movement to another rating category is clear
• Ultimately, go deeper for Targets and Key Ecological Attributes where:
– Significant investments are being made– Serious threats exist with uncertain impacts
Remember: Focus on a credible first iteration
Viability
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
HomeworkWhat What youyou need to do? need to do?• Form/re-group as teams (or, make a list who was in the team)• Revise conservation targets. • Revise viability assessment.• List participants who should be involved/invited to next workshop
YourYour products: products:– Collect CAP plans & Ecoregional Plans for project area– Gather plans, reports, papers, etc. which might inform future iterations of this
work (or make brief annotated bibliography)– Map targets (sketch map is OK) & project area– Simple Word document list of conservation targets & any stratification (w/brief
justifications – just a couple lines)– Completed Viability Assessment:
– at least 1 key attribute w/1 indicator and rating criteria and ranking for each target/stratification (with brief justifications for each (e.g. SWAG)).
– Simple Word document list of attributes and indicators for each target (w/brief description for each)
![Financial Viability Assessment: Voluntary Product Stewardship … · purposes of conducting the commercial and financial viability assessment. [Applicant Name] also confirms it has](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5ecccb579fe37d129f42bd47/financial-viability-assessment-voluntary-product-stewardship-purposes-of-conducting.jpg)
