and Goals Copyright and Use Terms Under this license you are free to share this presentation and adapt it for your use under the following conditions You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your u ID: 568964
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "1B. Viability Assessment" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
1B. Viability Assessmentand GoalsSlide2
Copyright and Use Terms
Under this license, you are free to share this presentation and adapt it for your use under the following conditions:
You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
You may not use this work for commercial purposes.If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you must remove the FOS logo, and you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA.
© Foundations of Success,
2013
FOS strongly recommends that this presentation is given by experts familiar with the adaptive management process presented by the Conservation Measures Partnership’s
Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation
.Slide3
CMP Open StandardsSlide4
Conceptualize
Step 1Slide5
Our Example – Sacramento River BasinSlide6
Rivers and streams Riparian habitat
Salmon
Vernal pool grasslands
Oak woodlandsStep 1B
Conceptualize:Define Conservation TargetsSlide7
A process that helps conservation project teams explicitly and clearly define healthy targets
Viability Assessment
What Is It?
Step 1BSlide8
Viability assessment helps teams:Define the most important ecological requirements of a healthy target
Identify the current health of a target
Set appropriate and measurable goals for desired future health of target
Develop monitoring plans
Viability AssessmentWhy Is It Important?Step 1BSlide9
Viability assessment helps teams answer important questions:
Viability Assessment
Bog frog
Bog frog
What key characteristics define a healthy target?
How do we physically
measure those characteristics?
(indicators)
How is our target doing
now
?
What do we want to achieve? (
ultimate, m
easurable
goals)
Step 1BSlide10
No clear and consistent definition of rankings
Optional documentation
“
Mouse-based
” decision making
Viability Analysis
What Did TNC Do Before?Step 1BSlide11
Define
key characteristics
(“key ecological attributes” or KEAs) of your target.
Identify indicator(s) for each KEADevelop a rating scale for each indicator, using the categories of
Very Good, Good,
Fair,
or Poor. Define the current status and the
desired future status
for your target
Viability Assessment:
The Basics
Step 1BSlide12
1. Size – Abundance and/or demographics of the population/ community
2.
Condition
– Composition, structure, & biotic interactions3. Landscape Context – Landscape-scale ecological processes, adjacency and connectivity
All Rated as
Very Good
,
Good
,
Fair
,
or
Poor
Three Categories for Rating Targets:
Viability Analysis
What Did TNC Do Before?
Step 1BSlide13
Define “
key ecological attributes
”
(KEAs) of your target. KEA: Aspects of a target’s biology or ecology that- If present, define a healthy target - If missing or altered, would lead to the loss or extreme degradation of that target over time.
Examples: Tropical hardwood forest target: size, connectivity among systems, presence of key speciesMigratory fish target: population status, access to spawning habitat, quality of spawning habitat
Viability AssessmentThe Details
Step 1BSlide14
Three Categories for Rating Targets
Viability Analysis:
The Details
Step 1BSlide15
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Vernal pool grasslands
Size
Size of vernal pool complexes
# adult
birds of reproductive age
1) Define
“
key ecological attributes
”
of your target.
Viability Assessment:
The Details
Step 1BSlide16
Identify an indicator(s) for your KEA
Viability Assessment
The Details
Step 1B
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Vernal pool grasslands
Size
Size of vernal pool complex
# of acres of ecol. viable* vernal pool complexes
*
ecologically viable
vernal pool complexes have more than 95% native vegetation and contain key species (defined by other indicators in viability assessmentSlide17
Viability: KEA Indicators
Criteria for a Good Indicator
Indicators should meet the following criteria:
Measurable – Able to be recorded and analyzed in quantitative and qualitative termsPrecise – Defined the same way by all peopleConsistent
– Not changing over time so that it always measures the same thingSensitive – Changes proportionately in response to the actual changes in the condition being measured In addition, the best indicators will be technically and financially feasible and of interest to partners, donors, and other stakeholders.
Slide18
Develop a rating scale for the indicator, using the categories of
Very Good,
Good,
Fair, or
Poor.
Viability AssessmentThe Details
Step 1B
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands
Size
Size of vernal pool complex
# of acres of ecol. viable vernal pool complexes
Slide19
Viability Assessment
The Details
Step 1B
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands
Size
Size of vernal pool complex
# of acres of ecol. viable vernal pool complexes
Good:
Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance
Fair:
Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention
Threshold lineSlide20
Step 1B
Viability Assessment
The Details
What is an
“
acceptable range of variation?
”Slide21
Viability Assessment
The Details
Step 1B
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands
Size
Size of vernal pool complex
# of acres of ecol. viable vernal pool complexes
10,000 – 19,999
20,000 – 30,000
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance
Good:
Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance
Poor:
Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention
Threshold lineSlide22
Viability Assessment
The Details
Step 1B
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands
Size
Size of vernal pool complex
# of acres of ecol. viable vernal pool complexes
10,000 – 19,999
20,000 – 30,000
> 30,000
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance
Good:
Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance
Poor:
Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention
Threshold lineSlide23
Viability Assessment
The Details
Step 1B
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands
Size
Size of vernal pool complex
# of acres of ecol. viable vernal pool complexes
< 10,000
10,000 – 19,999
20,000 – 30,000
> 30,000
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance
Good:
Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance
Poor:
Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention
Threshold lineSlide24
Define your current state and your desired future state for your target
Viability Assessment
The Details
Step 1B
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands
Size
Size of vernal pool complex
# of acres of ecol. viable vernal pool complexes
< 10,000
10,000 – 19,999
20,000 – 30,000
> 30,000
Current Status
15,000
Desired Future Status
25,000Slide25
Viability Assessment
More Examples
Step 1B
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance
Good:
Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance
Poor:
Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention
Target
Category
KEA
Vernal pool grasslands
Condition
Community architecture Slide26
Viability Assessment
More Examples
Step 1B
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance
Good:
Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance
Poor:
Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Vernal pool grasslands
Condition
Community architecture
Native plant species coverSlide27
Viability Assessment
More Examples
Step 1B
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance
Good:
Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance
Poor:
Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands
Condition
Community architecture
Native plant species cover
Mostly native vegetat-ion
Native
vegetat
-ion only Slide28
Viability Assessment
More Examples
Step 1B
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance
Good:
Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance
Poor:
Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands
Condition
Community architecture
Native plant species cover
Predom-inantly invasive exotics
Some invasives
Mostly native vegetat-ion
Native
vegetat
-ion only Slide29
Viability Assessment
More Examples
Step 1B
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance
Good:
Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance
Poor:
Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands
Condition
Community architecture
Native plant species cover
Predom-inantly invasive exotics
Some invasives
Mostly native vegetat-ion
Native vegetat-ion only
Current Status
Some invasives
Desired Future Status
Mostly nativeSlide30
Viability Assessment
More Examples
Step 1B
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance
Good:
Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance
Poor:
Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands
Condition
Community architecture
Native plant species cover
Predom-inantly invasive exotics
Some invasives
Mostly native vegetat-ion
Native vegetat-ion only
Current Status
Some invasives
Desired Future Status
Mostly native
Goal
: By
mid-2025,
the vernal pools in the Sacramento Basin
are composed of at least
95
%
native species.Slide31
Viability Assessment
More Examples
Step 1B
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance
Good:
Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance
Poor:
Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands
Landscape context
Water level fluctuations
Hydro-period (weeks of inundation)
No seasonal flooding
< .5m of seasonal fluctu-ation
.5 - .9 m seasonal fluctu-ation
1- 1.3 m seasonal
fluctu-ationSlide32
Viability Assessment
More Examples
Step 1B
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance
Good:
Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance
Poor:
Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands
Landscape context
Water level fluctuations
Hydro-period (weeks of inundation)
<8 weeks
8-11 weeks
12-15 weeks
>15 weeks
Current Status
16
Desired Future Status
16Slide33
The main purpose of viability assessment is 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)Be Prepared to Accept Uncertainty!!Slide34
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
grassland - Type X
Landscape Context
fire regime
fire frequency
1st Pass Table
Be Prepared to Accept Uncertainty!!
Grassland target identified
Fire regime = Key Attribute (Landscape Context)
Fire frequency = Indicator
Dense woody cover suggests not enough fireSlide35
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
grassland - Type X
Landscape Context
fire regime
fire frequency
not enough fire
1st Pass Table
Be Prepared to Accept Uncertainty!!
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
”Slide36
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very 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
2nd Pass Table
Be Prepared to Accept Uncertainty!!
Phone call to local grassland expert indicates natural fire frequency of 5-10 yearsSlide37
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very 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 w/ 5-10 yr fire return
<25%
25-50%
51-75%
>75%
3rd Pass Table
Be Prepared to Accept Uncertainty!!
% area burned at acceptable frequency is keySlide38
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
Key Attribute
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Grassland
Size
Size of ecosystem
Acres of grassland
< 10,000
10,000
-
20,000
20,000-30,000
>30,000
Grassland
Condition
Species composition
% of system in weed patches
> 5% of system
3-5% of system
1-3 % of system
<1% of system;
Grassland
Landscape Context
Compatible land uses
% natural surrounding vegetation developed or tilled
> 50%
25 - 50%
< 25%
< 5%
Viability: KEA Indicator RatingsSlide39
“
Representative & Encompass
”
Indicators → Key Attributes →Conservation Targets → Biodiversity at Site
Step 1B
Viability Analysis:Key Words for This ProcessSlide40
Viability Analysis in MiradiSlide41
Viability
Analysis in
MiradiSlide42
Viability: Key Ecological AttributesSlide43
Viability: KEA Indicators
IndicatorsSlide44
Rating scales
Viability: KEA Indicator RatingsSlide45
Current status of indicator
Desired future status
Current status of KEA
Viability: KEA Current/Desired StatusSlide46Slide47
Viability Analysis in MiradiSlide48
Focal
Target
Category
Key Attribute
Target
name
Size
Condition
Landscape
Context
Key Attribute A
Viability Analysis
1) Key Ecological Attributes (KEAs)
Step 1BSlide49
Focal
Target
Category
Key Attribute
Mangrove Forest
Size
Habitat Size
Step 1B
KEA for Mangrove ForestSlide50
Focal
Target
Category
Key Attribute
Coral Reef
Condition
Presence of Invasive species
Step 1B
KEA for Coral ReefSlide51
Focal
Target
Category
Key Attribute
Indicator
Target
name
Size
Condition
Landscape
Context
Key Attribute A
Indicator 1
Step 1B
Viability Analysis
ii) IndicatorsSlide52
Focal
Target
Category
Key Attribute
Indicator
Mangrove Forest
Size
Habitat Size
% of original forest
Step 1B
Indicator for Mangrove ForestSlide53
Focal
Target
Category
Key Attribute
Indicator
Coral Reef
Condition
Presence of Invasive species
Crown of thorns on reef
Step 1B
Indicator for Coral ReefSlide54
Indicator Ratings
Focal
Target
Category
Key Attribute
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Target
name
Size
Condition
Landscape
Context
Key Attribute A
Indicator 1
Criteria for Poor
Criteria for Fair
Criteria for Good
Criteria for Very Good
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance
Good:
Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance
Poor:
Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation
Step 1B
Viability Analysis
iii) Indicator Ratings
Fair:
Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human interventionSlide55
Indicator Ratings
Bold=Current
Italics=Desired
Focal
Target
Category
Key Attribute
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Coral Reef
Condition
Presence of Invasive species
Crown of thorns on reef
Lots
Few
None
Step 1B
Viability Ratings for Coral ReefSlide56
Indicator Ratings
Bold=Current
Italics=Desired
Focal
Target
Category
Key Attribute
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Mangrove Forest
Size
Habitat Size
% of original forest
< 25
25-50
51-75
> 75
Step 1B
Viability Ratings for Mangrove ForestSlide57
Where to get more info…
Conserve Online (The Nature Conservancy)
Guidance:
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/cap/resources/index_htmlExamples: TNC Conpro database - http://conpro.tnc.org Slide58
Goal: A formal statement detailing a desired impact of a project, such as the desired future status of a target.
Develop Your GoalsSlide59
A Good Goal Meets the Criteria:
Linked to targets:
Directly associated with one or more of your conservation targets.Should be phrased in terms of the Key Ecological Attribute(s) of the target that you are trying to conserve Size – Geographic extent (ecosystem or habitat); Abundance &/or demographics of the population/community (species)
Condition – Composition, structure, & biotic interactionsLandscape Context – Landscape-scale ecological processes, adjacency and connectivity
Develop Your GoalsSlide60
Impact oriented: Represents the desired future status of the conservation target over the long-term.
A preview of Results Chains:
Develop Your GoalsSlide61
Time Limited: Achievable within a specific period of time, generally 10 or more years.
Measurable:
Definable in relation to some standard scale (numbers, percentage, fractions, or all/nothing states).
Specific: Clearly defined so that all people involved in the project have the same understanding of what the terms in the goal mean.
Develop Your GoalsSlide62
How to Develop a Goal
Choose a conservation target
Select key ecological attributes of the target to represent in the goal
Write a draft description of the future desired condition of the targetApply criteria Modify the goal as neededSlide63
1. Choose a Conservation Target
Vernal pool grasslands
Source:
www.conserveca.orgSlide64
2. Select Key Ecological Attributes of the Target to Represent in the Goal
From the Viability Assessment…
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands
Size
Size of vernal pool complex
# of acres of ecol. viable vernal pool complexes
< 10,000
10,000 – 19,999
20,000 – 30,000
> 30,000
Current Status
15,000
Desired Future Status
25,000Slide65
2. Select Key Ecological Attributes of the Target to Represent in the Goal
Target:
Vernal pool grasslandsKey Ecological Attributes:Size of vernal pool complexesConnectivity of vernal pool complexesSpecies compositionSlide66
3. Write a Draft Goal
Target:
Vernal pool grasslandsKey Ecological Attributes:Size of vernal pool complexesConnectivity of vernal pool complexesSpecies compositionDraft Goal: By 2025, the size, connectivity and species composition of vernal pools are restored to historic levels.Slide67
4. Appy Criteria
Target:
Vernal pool grasslands
Key Ecological Attributes:SizeConnectivitySpecies compositionDraft Goal: By 2025, the size, connectivity and species composition of vernal pools are restored to historic levels.
Criteria:Linked to target?Impact-oriented?Time-bound?Specific?Measurable?Modified Goal: By 2025,
there will be at least 30,000 acres of ecologically viable vernal pool grasslands.Slide68
5. Modify the Goal as Needed
Target:
Vernal pool grasslands
Key Ecological Attributes:SizeConnectivitySpecies compositionDraft Goal: By 2025, there will be at least 30,000 acres of ecologically viable vernal pool grasslands.
Criteria:Linked to target?Impact-oriented?Time-bound?Specific?Measurable?Modified Goal: By 2025, there will be at least 30,000 acres of vernal pool grasslands with >90% native species cover and >50% connectivity.Slide69
By 2025, there will be at least 30,000 acres of vernal pool grasslands with >90% native species cover and >50% connectivity.
Example Goal
Step 2ASlide70
Goals in Miradi
Step 2ASlide71
Example of a Goal
Step 2A
Goal 2:
By June 2020, 300 new private properties encompassing 150 ha of high conservation value* wetlands on the Swan Coastal Plain reliably support key ecological processes** and contain viable populations of key native flora and fauna, as listed by the Department of Environment and Conservation.
* High conservation value wetlands = wetlands assigned
‘
Conservation’ management category by the Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia.** Ecological processes include groundwater recharge and hydroperiod (see viability assessment)Slide72
Careful…A Goal is NOT a Threat Reduction Objective
Conservation target:
Riparian habitat
Goal: By June 2025, there is a buffer of at least 50 feet of riparian habitat along at least 50 miles of the Sacramento River and its tributaries.
Threat to target: New developmentThreat reduction objective: Beginning in 2015, there is no further development in high priority riparian habitat along the Sacramento River.Slide73
Example Goal
Target
:
Coral Reefs Goal: By 2025, at least 80% of the coral reef habitat in the northern bioregion will have live coral coverage of at least 20% and will contain healthy populations of key species* * Healthy populations of species at the top of the food chain, such as sharks, and an abundance of other key species, such as parrot fish and spiny lobster. Whether a population is “healthy
” will be based on the latest scientific understanding. See viability assessment for population numbers for different species.Slide74
Target:
Montane
forest (in Eastern Arcs)
Goal: By 2017, 100% of remaining montane forest* is effectively conserved** and connectivity among major forest patches*** is created.
* Based on baseline data from 1999 -2003 (total is around 2,000,529 ha)** Effectively conserved = Intact tree canopy with full set of species including representative endemic species*** Ulugurus (
Bunduki, Kitumbaku Hills), East Usambaras (Derema,
Nilo-Kambai/Segoma), Udzungwa (Scarp to Matundu/
Iyonde
)
Example GoalSlide75
Which of the Following Comply with the Criteria for a Good Goal?
In 10 years, eliminate mangrove harvesting in all of Ban Don Bay, Thailand.
By 2022, more than 80 pairs of quetzales will successfully nest and reproduce each year in the Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve.
Within 12 years of the start of the project, Katani Nature Preserve will serve as an effective ecological corridor for tigers traveling between Karimara and Sulaken National Parks.By 2015, the population of Golden Lion Tamarins has increased. Slide76
CMP Strategic Planning Process
Team, Scope, Vision
Conservation Targets
Viability Assessment
Goals
Determining Strategies Results Chains
Objectives and ActivitiesMonitoring Plan
Threat Rating
Conceptual ModelSlide77
Procedure
For your project, please choose
two
conservation targets (one species and one ecosystem target, if you have a mix). Conduct a viability assessment by carrying out the following steps:
For just one of your targets, complete the viability assessment:
Identify key ecological attributes (KEAs) for the conservation target. If applicable, try to use all three attribute categories (size, condition, and landscape context). Record these in Miradi. (Note: In
Miradi, you will need to double click on the target and set your “viability analysis mode”
to Key Attribute. You can use the viability tab in this same dialog box to create your KEAs and fill out your viability assessment. You can also use the
Viability
view within
Miradi
to enter information).
Select indicator(s) for one KEA.
Determine an acceptable range of variation and rating scale for at least one indicator
Determine current and desired future status of the indicator
Record any assumptions or important background information
For
a second
conservation target:
Complete a Simple Viability Assessment in
Miradi
(see Box 10 in the Training Manual).
(Note: In
Miradi
, you will need to double click on each target and set your
“
viability analysis mode
”
to Simple to do the simple viability assessment)
Instructions (see handout)Slide78
Instructions
For your conservation target, develop a goal.
Ensure that the goal meets all of the criteria.
Transfer the results to Miradi.Slide79
Questions that Coaches Should Ask: Viability Assessment
Has the team taken an iterative approach to viability assessment – starting with a few KEAs and simple ways to measure them – or have they gotten bogged down in details and spent too much time on this?
Is viability assessment based on best available information (which, in the absence of data, can be expert opinion)
?Is each KEA something essential to the health of the target? (better to have fewer KEAs)Slide80
Questions that Coaches Should Ask: Viability Assessment (cont.)
Are KEAs stated in positive terms?
Are
the indicators for the KEAs measurable things?Do rating thresholds look right?Is definition of VG viability based on an objective standard of long-term persistence (not what is feasible)?Does the plan include any targets with poor viability that are not favored by changes in climate? Slide81
Questions that Coaches Should Ask:Goals
Does the team have a well-articulated concept of success for their project, expressed in specific, measurable, time-bound goals?
Are the goals ambitious but achievable?
Do these goals really provide direction for the project’s actions?NOTE: These questions also apply to threat reduction objectives, which are defined after developing results chains.