Transcript WHSRN summary 2004 09-20

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network
SITE ASSESSMENT TOOL
Overview
&
Users’ Guide
WHSRN Executive Office
Manomet, Massachusetts USA
What is the Site Assessment Tool ?
• Created by WHSRN, a way to measure
threats to shorebirds—now and over
time—at any site in the Hemisphere
• Qualitative and quantitative assessment
• Format: A 5-part Excel workbook
• A way to also capture knowledge about
a site in general
Foundations of the Tool
•
Framework for Evaluating
Protected Areas Management
• Pressure-State-Response
Framework
•
Threats and Conservation Actions
Authority Files
Global IBA Monitoring Framework
Foundations (cont’d)
• Tracking Tool for Management
Effectiveness in Ramsar Sites
• Methodology for Rapid-Assessment of
Protected Area Management
Status of Mediterranean Wetlands
Questionnaire (MedWet)
The Five-S Framework for
Site Conservation
Purpose of the Tool
• Take stock of the “state of the site,” from land
managers/owners’ and stakeholders’ perspective
• Match conservation actions to major threats, and
measure success of those actions over time
• Establish baseline for adaptive management
• Discover threats or conditions in common among
sites in Network; work together, “lessons learned”
• Conduct Network-wide analyses based on
standardized information from each site
• Serve as consensus-based needs assessment;
strengthen justification to funding sources
© Charles Duncan
© Karl Kaufmann
Key Features and Benefits of the Tool
• Supported by strong partnerships with USFWS, Canadian
Wildlife Service, BirdLife International partners, and more
• Helps to advance IBA monitoring and Ramsar wetlands status
assessments
• Gives managers a comprehensive snapshot of their site;
applies to more than “just” shorebird conservation
• Brings together or re-engages diverse partners and/or
stakeholders; gives each a voice within a structured forum
• Results/Scores comparable across time and space; most
meaningful when carried out every # years
• Based on existing data only; no new data-gathering needed
Structure of the Tool
Microsoft Excel workbook with 5 “scorecard”
worksheets and 3 informational worksheets:
• Introduction
• Scoring Guidance
• Management Effectiveness
• State
• Threats
• Conservation Actions
• Basic Information (no score)
• Glossary
Scoring
• In “Management Effectiveness” worksheet, choose
one of several pre-defined scores/answers
• Receive “Plus Points” for activities that enhance
management or conservation
• All others, use
drop-down menu
to select score:
0-3, N/A, or
Unknown
• Explain/qualify
choice under
Comments
Completing the Tool
Worksheets:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Scoring Guidance
Management Effectiveness
State
Threats
Conservation Actions
Basic Information
Glossary
Minimum
Assessment
37 questions in Mgt.
Effectiveness
All answers weigh
equally
Completing the Tool
Worksheets:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Scoring Guidance
Management Effectiveness
State
Threats
Conservation Actions
Basic Information
Glossary
Full
Assessment
All scores relative
to the max. score
possible for each
worksheet
Methods of
Participation
A. 1-day workshop (with facilitator), all partners and
stakeholders complete Tool together.
B. Select partners and stakeholders complete Tool as
small group or individually, and coordinator
compiles; Results validated during larger workshop.
C. Coordinator completes Tool individually; results
validated by partners and stakeholders during
workshop. (Least participatory/desirable)
* Workshops can be replaced by electronic means if needed
SITE ASSESSMENT TOOL
Users’
Guide
Tips for Navigating the Tool
•
Verify Excel settings: choose “Enable Macros”
• Black boxes with green text contain instructions:
•
Click “+/-” to
show or hide
‘tree’ of questions
beneath a topic
Tips (cont’d)
•
Expand or
close
categories
and
questions by
clicking “+/-”
in box next
to row
number
•
Move between
worksheets using
hyperlinks above
or
tabs below
• Underlined words are in the Glossary worksheet; click
on word to view definition/clarification
• Cells with red tab
in corner contain
a pop-up note
with scoring or
other info; click
on red tab to view
Introduction
Scoring
Guidance
Management
Effectiveness
State
Threats
Conservation
Actions
Basic
Information
Glossary
The Worksheets
Step by Step
• Introduction: explains the roots
and purposes of the Tool
• Scoring Guidance: explains how
to assign scores within each
worksheet (varies)
• Glossary: defines/clarifies
terms used; neutral reference
point for variations in a term’s
meaning among countries,
regions, or participants
Introduction
Scoring
Guidance
Management
Effectiveness
State
Threats
Conservation
Actions
Basic
Information
Glossary
Management Effectiveness
• Core for “Minimum Assessment”
• 37 questions with pre-defined
answers/scores; add comments
as needed
• Basic but comprehensive (status,
mgt., threats, needs, support)
Management Effectiveness: Example
Site: Copper River Delta, Alaska
Question 5: Legal Status –
how much of WHSRN Site is
protected area?
Score: 2 was most appropriate
(50-90%)
Comments: ownership
and area were qualified
Note: Glossary useful for
clarifying term
“Protected Area”
Introduction
State
Scoring
Guidance
• Assess ecological integrity of site
Management
Effectiveness
State
Threats
Conservation
Actions
Basic
Information
Glossary
from perspective of “conservation
targets” (shorebird species)
• Key Ecological Attributes: a way of
answering the question, “what is it
about our site that makes it good
or critical to one/several/all
shorebird species?”
• Attributes are specific and
measurable
State: Example
(Please expand the menus with the +/- or numbered
BACK TO
boxes (1,2,3) to the left to display the questions in each
topic. If the menus are mixed up, go to DATA - Group and MANAGEMENT
Outline - Settings and verify that the box "Summary rows
EFFECTIVENESS
below detail" is unchecked)
GLOSSARY
GENERAL
SCORING
GUIDANCE
NEXT: THREATS
1. SHOREBIRD
CONSERVATION What are the most important conservation targets at your site in terms of shorebirds? Choose only one option.
TARGETS
A single species of
Justification for the
Which species?
shorebird
choice
Two or more particular
shorebird species.
All shorebirds without
specific regard to
particular species.
X
Which species? Western Sandpipers, Dunlin
Justification for the Significant proprotion of pacific
choice
flyway population uses this site
Which species?
Justification for the
choice
Site: Fraser River Estuary, Canada
Conservation Targets: Western Sandpiper, Dunlin
Justification: Significant portion of Pacific Flyway
population uses this site
State: Example (cont’d)
2. KEY
ECOLOGICAL
ATTRIBUTES
Identify a minimal set of Key Ecological Attributes at the site (e.g., up to 5)
necessary for the target(s) chosen. To help identify these Key Attributes,
consider those characteristics that, if degraded or missing at the site, would
seriously jeopardize the conservation target’s ability to persist over time.
1
Attributes for
Target 1:
Community architecture
2
Abundance of
food resources
3
Soil / sediment stability &
movement
Use the lists below for examples. If you have
chosen two or more particular shorebird
species as a target, and they vary significantly
in their requirements, it might be useful to
evaluate them as separate targets.
4
Landscape
pattern (mosaic)
& structure
5
Attributes that are key to sustaining WESA, DUNL:
Existence of (1) expansive habitat, (2) abundance
of food resources, (3) influx of sediments to
sustain mudflats, and (4) a mosaic of habitats.
Note: Both species treated as one “target,” due to similar needs
State: Example (cont’d)
3. INDICATORS FOR KEY ECOLOGICAL
Give an indicator for each of the Key Ecological Attributes chosen. Give c
for that indicator in the site, as well as the desired value or range of values for e
ATTRIBUTES (Indicators can be Yes/No or
Presence/Absence, as well as quantitative measures) would like to be achieved at the site. If there is no data available, write unkno
TARGET 1:
Key Ecological
Attribute
Indicator (mention units of
value)
Current or
Recent Indicator
Value for the Site
Community
at least 1 km open flats for
4 km
Abundance of food
resources
> 5 inverts/cm3
Soil / sediment
stability & movement
Landscape pattern
(mosaic) & structure
Desired Indicator Value for
the Site
4 km
Current State of
the Indicator
(Very Good.
Good, Fair, Poor)
Comm
each a
inclu
Good
Port exp
> 5 inverts/cm3 @
near shore, fewer approx. 5 inverts/cm3
further away
Good
Port exp
could af
sediment size and distribution
silt-sand
silt-fine sand
Good
sufficient alternate feeding
habitat (ie at high tide)
8000 ha crops in
field
8000 ha crops in field
VIABILITY SCORE FOR
TARGET
“Mosaic” (last indicator): Current State is
“Fair” despite Current value = Desired
value; Comments explain habitat
ultimately in decline due to conversion
Fair
Fair
Port exp
could af
* most i
farmlan
is replac
Good
* most important for DUNL farmland habitat in decline as it
is replaced by greenhouses
Introduction
Scoring
Guidance
Management
Effectiveness
State
Threats
Conservation
Actions
Basic
Information
Glossary
Threats
• 12 categories; each contains
multiple levels of subcategories
• Focus on direct threats; score only
those that apply – skip others
• Assess each threat according to
Timing, Scope, Severity, Location ;
select score from drop-down
menu (0-3, Inside/Outside/Both)
• “Impact” score per category and
overall is automatically totaled
0. No threats
1. Habitat conversion/loss/degradation (human induced)
IMPACT
COMMENTS & DETAILS
(Mention indicators and dates if
available)
TREND
LOCATION
SEVERITY
SCOPE
THREATS (Please expand the menus with the +/- or numbered boxes
(1,2,3,4,5) to the left for specific threats within each category. Underlined
threats have subcategories) Don't be overwhelmed by the lenght of the list, you
only need to score those that are applicable to the site!
TIMING
Threats: Example
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1. Agriculture
1.1.1. Crops
1.1.1.1. Shifting agriculture
1.1.1.2. Small-holder farming
1.1.1.3. Agro-industry farming
3
1
2O
Large greenhouses are being built in
farmlands, which are concerning some
due to the associated habitat loss
Site: Fraser River Estuary, Canada
Agro-industry: farmlands  greenhouses
Scores: Timing = 3 (happening now); Scope = 1
(some,10-49% of area); Severity = 1 (slow but
significant); Location = O (Outside of site)
Impact: 6 (medium)
6
Introduction
Scoring
Guidance
Management
Effectiveness
State
Threats
Conservation
Actions
Basic
Information
Glossary
Conservation Actions
• In other words, responses to
threats
Two-fold purpose of worksheet:
1. Rate effectiveness (success) of
actions already taken or currently
underway
2. Prioritize what needs to be done
within next 5 years
• Score Effectiveness and set
Priorities using drop-down menu
(0-3, x = unknown/undefined)
Conservation Actions: Example
CONSERVATION ACTION (Please expand the menus with the +/- or
numbered boxes (1,2,3,4) to the left to display the questions in each topic. Underlined
actions have subcategories) Don't be overwhelmed by the length of the list, you only
need to score those that are applicable to the site!
In place / done Needed within
recently (Score 5 years (Score COMMENTS & DETAILS (Mention
effectiveness from priorities from 1 to
0 to 3)
3)
4.4. Protected areas
4.4.1. Identification of new protected areas
4.4.2. Establishment
4.4.2.1. Public Protected Areas
indicators and dates if available)
Provincial Wildlife Management Area,
National Wildlife Area, Migratory Bird
Sanctuary, Wild Bird Trust of British
Columbia, Ramsar Site, IBA
2
4.4.2.2. Private protected areas
4.4.2.3. Easements and resource
rights
4.4.3. Management
4.4.4. Expansion
4.4.5. Staffing
4.4.6. Infrastructure and equipment
4.5. Community-based initiatives
4.6. Other
3
Maintaining ecosystem quality in the
estuary
3
Minimizing impact of port expansion
Site: Fraser River Estuary, Canada
Protected Areas: Public (2 = some good effects/partial success)
Priorities: Managing for ecosystem quality, and minimizing
impact of port expansion (3 = highest)
Conservation Actions: Example (cont’d)
CONSERVATION ACTION
(Please expand the menus with the +/- or
numbered boxes (1,2,3,4) to the left to display the questions in each topic. Underlined
actions have subcategories) Don't be overwhelmed by the length of the list, you only
need to score those that are applicable to the site!
In place / done Needed within
recently (Score 5 years (Score
effectiveness from priorities from 1 to
0 to 3)
3)
0. No conservation actions
1. Policy-based actions
2. Communication and Education
3. Research actions
4. Habitat and site-based actions
5. Species-based actions
6. Other
6.1. Economic and other incentives
6.2. Institutional development
AVERAGE SCORE FOR EFFECTIVENESS /SUCCESS
Conservation action score according to Tracking Tool (0-3)
1.86
1
0
1
Effectiveness (avg.): 1.86 on scale of 0 (nil) to 3 (high)
1 = Some limited conservation initiatives and management
actions are in place; 2 = Substantive…but not comprehensive
Introduction
Scoring
Guidance
Management
Effectiveness
State
Threats
Conservation
Actions
Basic
Information
Glossary
Basic Information
• Core for “Minimum Assessment”
• Fill in basic info on where,
when, by whom, and how the
Tool was completed
• Also give general feedback, flag
any sensitive or confidential
answers, provide list of
participants, and/or give
sources of info referenced
Basic Information: Example
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences
Iván Darío Valencia
National Fish & Wildlife Foundation
BirdLife Secretariat, National Audubon Society, BSC Nature Canada,
Panama Audubon, Aves Argentinas
USFWS, USFS, Canadian Wildlife Service, CONANP (Mexico), CEMAVE
(Brazil), Secretariat of Environment – Argentina, Suriname Nature
Conservation Division, ANAM (Panama)
WWF, Ramsar, Wetlands International
Partners in Upper Bay of Panama, Copper River Delta, and Fraser
River Estuary WHSRN Sites