Conventions for Defining, Naming, Measuring, Combining, and Mapping Threats in Conservation An Initial Proposal for a Standard System

Abstract

Although conservation practitioners are ultimately interested in protecting or restoring biodiversity, much of the day-to-day work of conservation involves taking action to counter threats – the human activities that negatively impact biodiversity. Understanding threats is a critical step in many stages of the conservation process such as setting priorities as to where to work, developing strategies to address these problems, coming up with measures to determine whether a given project or program is achieving its desired results, and analyzing and comparing results to promote learning. Despite the importance of threats in the conservation process, there are only a few standardized systems for dealing with threats within conservation organizations and no system in wide use across organizations. To address these problems, in this paper we focus on developing five sets of conventions for describing threats: (a) a framework for defining threats and related factors, (b) a taxonomy for naming direct threats, (c) a system for measuring the magnitude of threats, (d) a procedure for combining threats across targets, threats, and projects, and (e) a method for the spatial mapping of threats. In each section we first define the problem, outline our criteria for the ideal solution, selectively review existing work on this topic, offer a proposed convention, assess it against our ideal criteria, and discuss next steps that might be needed to improve or finalize our proposed convention. Our hope is that our proposed conventions might become the first draft of a system that after sufficient discussion and modification, might be adopted across the conservation community. Conventions for Defining, Naming, Measuring, Combining, and Mapping Threats in Conservation The limits of my language mean the limits of my world... What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence. – Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-philosophicus 1. Why Do We Need Conventions for Describing Threats? Conservation is an action-oriented discipline. Although conservation practitioners are ultimately interested in protecting or restoring biodiversity, much of the day-to-day work of conservation involves taking action to counter threats – the human activities that negatively impact biodiversity. There is thus a critical need in conservation work to identify and assess the threats affecting the biodiversity of concern. Understanding threats is a critical step in many stages of the conservation process (e.g., TNC 2000, CMP 2003) such as setting priorities as to where to work, developing strategies to address these problems, coming up with measures to determine whether a given project or program is achieving its desired results, and analyzing and comparing results to promote learning. Despite the importance of threats in the conservation process, there are only a few standardized systems for dealing with threats within conservation organizations (e.g. EPA 1998, TNC 2000, Ervin 2002, Salafsky et al. 2002) and no system in wide use across organizations. To the extent that they consider threats at all, each organization, and even each project team within an organization, seems to have developed their own way of characterizing the threats they are facing. The situation in conservation today is much like the early days of medicine before the advent of standard listings of diseases (e.g., Merck 1899) or the practice of psychiatry before the development of a standard nomenclature and description for mental health problems (American Psychiatric Association 1952). This lack of a standard system causes problems in many steps of the conservation process including: • Problems in setting priorities and planning – Without common definitions and measurements of threats, it is difficult to compare places where a group could potentially take action and set priorities for resource investment. It is also difficult to plan which of these prioritized places should be tackled immediately and which can be deferred until a bit later. • Problems in designing projects and programs and developing effective strategies – Without common definitions and measurements of threats, it is difficult to select which threats to address within a project or program area. It is also difficult to *** Draft Version: 1 December 2003 *** 2 Conventions for Threats in Conservation compare the potential leverage obtained by using different strategies and decide which to use. • Problems in measuring conservation status and effectiveness – Without common definitions and measurements of threats, it is difficult to determine and compare the conservation status of biodiversity at one location over time. It is also hard to roll-up status assessments across multiple locations. And it is tricky to determine the relative effectiveness of different conservation actions in relation to threat-based objectives. • Problems in learning – Without common definitions and measurements of threats, it is difficult to compare one practitioner’s experiences with others, which is the foundation for any kind of systematic learning about how to effectively and costeffectively counter each type of threat. To address these problems, in this paper we focus on developing five sets of conventions for describing threats: a. A framework for defining threats and related factors b. A taxonomy for naming direct threats c. A system for measuring the magnitude of threats d. A procedure for combining threats across targets, threats, and projects e. A method for the spatial mapping of threats In each section we first define the problem, outline our criteria for the ideal solution, selectively review existing work on this topic, offer a proposed convention, assess it against our ideal criteria, and discuss next steps that might be needed to improve or finalize our proposed convention. Our hope is that at a minimum, our proposed conventions will prompt individuals and organizations to develop an explicit system of their own that can be readily translated into the system that we propose. Ultimately, however, we hope that our proposed conventions might become the first draft of a system that after sufficient discussion and modification, might be adopted across the conservation community. 2. A Framework for Defining Threats and Related Factors At the moment, different organizations and individuals have overlapping but subtly different ways of referring to threats. These differences include both the specific terms used as well as their relationship to one another. To solve this problem, we set out to develop a generic framework for referring to threats in which the terms are: Clear – Terms and their relationship to one another are unambiguous and precise in their definitions. *** Draft Version: 1 December 2003 *** Conventions for Threats in Conservation 3 Understandable – Terms are used in accordance with their general meaning in the English language. Compatible – Terms are as compatible with the lexicons currently being used by various conservation organizations Current Practices in Conservation Most conservation organizations currently have some way of describing the threats facing biodiversity. Fig. 1 presents four ways of generically describing the relationship between threats and biodiversity. Each of these descriptions takes place in the context of each organization’s broader framework for modeling a conservation project (as defined in Salafsky et al 2002). To this end, the specific way in which each organization describes threats is influenced by how the group chooses to define the target on which they are focusing. It is also influenced by the scale at which the organization conducts its projects. • EPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment – As described in EPA (1998), the risk assessment methodology starts by determining specific assessment endpoints, which are operationally defined by an ecological entity and its attributes (e.g., salmon reproduction). A source is an entity or action that releases a chemical, physical, or biological stressor. A stressor causes adverse effects to ecosystem components or functions. Stressors cause a particular impact referred to as a measure of effect that in turn, negatively impacts a particular assessment endpoint. • TNC’s 5-S Framework – As described in TNC (2000), TNC’s methodology for conservation area planning starts by describing the systems that the project is focusing on. Systems are synonymous with conservation targets. Conservation targets can be single species (e.g., salmon), communities (e.g., specific plant associations or alliances), or ecological systems (e.g., a riparian system that includes aquatic and terrestrial assemblages). Each target has specific key ecological attributes related to its size, condition, and landscape context. Conservation targets are affected by stresses, which impair or degrade key ecological attributes (for example, alterations to a natural stream flow regime). Stresses are in turn caused by sources of stress, which are human (for example, dams or other water control structures) or biological (for example, invasive species) entities that infringe upon a conservation target in a way that results in stress. • FOS’s Model of a Conservation Project – As described in Salafsky et al. (2002), a generic model of a conservation project starts by defining the conservation targets that the project is focusing on. These targets can range from specific species to entire ecosystems. Targets are negatively affected by threats, which can be further subdivided into direct threats that are proximate to the targets and indirect threats that affect the direct threats. Opportunities are things that can positively affect the targets. Threats and opportunities are together factors. *** Draft Version: 1 December 2003 *** 4 Conventions for Threats in Conservation Figure 1. Examples of Frameworks for Describing Threats & Targets and the