Planning for success: Why conservation programs need a strategic program for recovering species (original) (raw)
Related papers
2 3 What works for threatened species recovery? An empirical evaluation for Australia
Despite the growing numbers of threatened species and high levels of spending on their recovery worldwide, there is surprisingly little evidence about which conservation approaches are effective in arresting or reversing threatened species declines. Using two government data sets, we examined associations between population trends for 841 nationally-threatened terrestrial species in Australia, and four measures of conservation effort: (a) how much their distribution overlaps with strictly protected areas (IUCN I-IV), (b) and other protected areas (IUCN V-VI), (c) the number of recovery activities directed at the species, and (d) numbers of natural resource conservation activities applied in areas where populations of the threatened species occur. We found that all populations of 606 (72%) species were in decline. Species with greater distributional overlap with strictly protected areas had proportionately more populations that were increasing or stable. This effect was robust to geographic range size, data quality differences and extent of protection. Measures other than strictly protected areas showed no positive associations with stable or increasing trends. Indeed, species from regions with more natural resource conservation activities were found to be more likely to be declining, consistent with differential targeting of such generalised conservation activities to highly disturbed landscapes. Major differences in trends were also found among the different jurisdictions in which species predominantly occurred, which may be related to different legislative protections against habitat destruction. Although we were not able to test causation, this research corroborates other evidence that protected areas contribute to the stabilization or
Prioritizing recovery funding to maximize conservation of endangered species
Conservation Letters
The absence of a rigorous mechanism for prioritizing investment in endangered species management is a major implementation hurdle affecting recovery. Here, we present a method for prioritizing strategies for endangered species management based on the likelihood of achieving species' recovery goals per dollar invested. We demonstrate our approach for 15 species listed under Canada's Species at Risk Act that co-occur in Southwestern Saskatchewan. Without management, only two species have >50% probability of meeting recovery objectives; whereas, with management, 13 species exceed the >50% threshold with the implementation of just five complementary strategies at a cost of $126m over 20 years. The likelihood of meeting recovery objectives rarely exceeded 70% and two species failed to reach the >50% threshold. Our findings underscore the need to consider the cost, benefit, and feasibility of management strategies when developing recovery plans in order to prioritize implementation in a timely and cost-effective manner.
2015
Prioritisation of natural assets for monitoring and research activities facilitates equitable allocation of finite conservation resources. We present a framework that identifies broad monitoring and research priorities for conservation areas, such as marine parks, and threatened species. Criteria within the framework are used to assess: the value (V) of assets; anthropogenic pressures (P) that affect assets; and the current state of asset knowledge (K). A panel of experts score criteria and the relative importance of each asset is calculated for monitoring (V * P), fundamental research (V * K) and applied research (V * P * K). The framework allows prioritisation of assets in an initial evaluation that agrees with institutional mandates, and facilitates future assessment of the feasibility and cost of monitoring or research in the implementation phase. The utility of the framework is that it can be easily applied by conservation practitioners and can concurrently prioritise monitorin...
AN ASSESSMENT OF MONITORING EFFORTS IN ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY PLANS
Ecological Applications, 2002
Recovery efforts for threatened and endangered species often must be initiated with incomplete data. The outcomes of such efforts are difficult to predict, which makes monitoring the progress of recovery efforts an integral part of the recovery process. We evaluated the role of monitoring in recovery plans for 181 species listed as threatened and endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. We considered both the extent to which monitoring tasks were proposed as part of the recovery effort and the extent to which the tasks proposed were actually implemented. In general, tasks devoted to tracking the species' population trend were more likely to be proposed and implemented than were other monitoring activities (e.g., those devoted to the species' demographics, its habitat requirements, or the impact of predators, competitors, and exotics). We found that the extent and nature of the monitoring proposed and implemented appeared to reflect taxonomic biases that exist throughout the recovery process and were little influenced either by the level of understanding of the species' biology or by the recovery priority assigned to the species. In particular, monitoring efforts did not adequately address the specific threats affecting species. Proposals for, and implementation of, monitoring progress toward recovery goals were independent of the type of criteria defined in the plans (e.g., population level and habitat extent), although population-related criteria were disproportionately common. Based on these findings, we caution against an overemphasis on focal species monitoring, especially when such an emphasis leads to the reduction or exclusion of other types of monitoring. We also recommend that species-specific attributes factor more prominently in the development of monitoring to avoid monitoring action that is otherwise unnecessary.
Many countries rely on formal legislation to protect and plan for the recovery of threatened species. Even though the listing procedures in threatened species legislation are designed to be consistent for all species there is usually a bias in implementing the laws towards charismatic fauna and flora, which leads to uneven allocation of conservation efforts. However, the extent of bias in national threatened species lists is often unknown. Australia is a good example: the list of threatened species under the Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act has not been reviewed since 2000, when it was first introduced. We assessed how well this Act represents threatened species across taxonomic groups and threat status, and whether biases exist in the types of species with recovery plans. We found that birds, amphibians and mammals have high levels of threatened species (12–24%) but ,6% of all reptiles and plants and ,0.01% of invertebrates and fish are considered threatened. Similar taxonomic biases are present in the types of species with recovery plans. Although there have been recent improvements in the representation of threatened species with recovery plans across taxonomic groups, there are still major gaps between the predicted and listed numbers of threatened species. Because of biases in the listing and recovery planning processes many threatened species may receive little attention regardless of their potential for recovery: a lost opportunity to achieve the greatest conservation impact possible. The Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act in Australia needs reform to rectify these biases.
Many countries rely on formal legislation to protect and plan for the recovery of threatened species. Even though the listing procedures in threatened species legislation are designed to be consistent for all species there is usually a bias in implementing the laws towards charismatic fauna and flora, which leads to uneven allocation of conservation efforts. However, the extent of bias in national threatened species lists is often unknown. Australia is a good example: the list of threatened species under the Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act has not been reviewed since 2000, when it was first introduced. We assessed how well this Act represents threatened species across taxonomic groups and threat status, and whether biases exist in the types of species with recovery plans. We found that birds, amphibians and mammals have high levels of threatened species (12-24%) but , 6% of all reptiles and plants and , 0.01% of invertebrates and fish are considered threatened. Similar taxonomic biases are present in the types of species with recovery plans. Although there have been recent improvements in the representation of threatened species with recovery plans across taxonomic groups, there are still major gaps between the predicted and listed numbers of threatened species. Because of biases in the listing and recovery planning processes many threatened species may receive little attention regardless of their potential for recovery: a lost opportunity to achieve the greatest conservation impact possible. The Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act in Australia needs reform to rectify these biases.