Monitoring Biodiversity Conservation Outcomes in Seascapes

1. Marine Outcomes Monitoring Monitoring Biodiversity Conservation Outcomes in Seascapes

2. To strengthen the relationship between local data collection and large-scale data representation through standardized regional biodiversity monitoring ‘from disparate data to coordinated reporting’ Challenge

3. A data driven and species based approach to direct the implementation of conservation interventions. Key Biodiversity Areas provide a systematic protocol for identifying and documenting sites critical for global biodiversity conservation (Eken et al, 2004). Delineation of marine Key Biodiversity Areas triggered by irreplaceability and vulnerability species criteria (Edgar et al: in progress) Outcomes Definition:

4. Aims to generate long term information for reporting trends at the seascape scale. 3 objectives Deliver ‘headline’ messages for awareness raising Inform policy and investment decision making Provides detailed adaptive spatial and temporal information to direct where, what and how limited conservation resources should be dedicated. Monitoring Biodiversity Conservation Outcomes:

5. Monitoring Biodiversity Conservation Outcomes: • Collaborative and systematic reporting improves our effectiveness to: • Explicitly track & assess trends in biodiversity • Use aggregated information to justify and direct future conservation, policy and investment decision making • Support global assessments by contributing to international biodiversity reporting (CBD, MEA) • Use actual data to underpin & guide institutional strategic planning

6. Scales of monitoring and reporting Regional trends identify gaps in conservation priorities at finer scales as well informs management decision making Increase in resolution of data reported Increase in spatial extent of data reported Seascape Country 1 Country 2 Country 3 Standard & compatible local data required to report regional and global trends. KBA 1 KBA 2 KBA 1 KBA 2 KBA 1 KBA 2

7. Relationship between different scales of monitoring Field data Report baseline data at hotspot level Species, sites and scapes data centralized in data management system Aggregated species & site baseline data. Analyzed with other variables (protection & management status, change in habitat & ecosystem composition) Filter Data is aggregated using Red List Index & site prioritization mechanisms (IBA, IPA, KBA).

8. Relationship between different scales of monitoring Strengthen fundraising to ensure sustainability Disseminate biodiversity data back to stakeholders Field data Species, sites and scapes data centralized in data management system Disseminate data to policy decision makers Report baseline data at hotspot level Filter Aggregated species & site baseline data. Analyzed with other variables (protection & management status, habitat change) Data is aggregated using Red List Index & site prioritization mechanisms (IBA, IPA, KBA).

9. Challenges in applying a biome neutral approach to outcomes monitoring: • Lack of species population information and conservation status knowledge limits our ability to define and measure conservation outcomes. • Investment in the Global Marine Species Assessment • Delineating Marine Biodiversity Conservation Corridors • Constraints in using Remote Sensing for change detection of key habitats

10. Marine Outcomes Framework & Indicators • Proposed indicators are considered practical, achievable and globally applicable. • Strongly correlated to the achievement of the three conservation outcomes • Their transparent nature enables indicators to be adapted and applied to a regional context

11. ‘Extinction Avoided’ 1) Number of threatened species is reduced: % change in number of threatened species in each IUCN Red List category. Red List Index provides a scientifically sound mechanism for tracking the threatened status of species across all taxonomic groups (Butchart et al, 2005) Priority indicators for implementation:

12. ‘Areas Protected’ 2) Key Biodiversity areas are formally safeguarded: % of all Key Biodiversity Areas that are managed with a binding contractual agreement & biodiversity conservation as a management objective. Protecting areas is the most important and successful tactic for maintaining biodiversity and avoiding species extinctions (Bruner et al. 2001) Measuring both the extent and effectiveness of protected areas is regarded as a useful indicator for meeting large-scale biodiversity targets (Chape et al, 2005) Priority indicators for implementation:

13. ‘Areas Protected’ 3) Key habitats & critical ecological functions are maintained at Key Biodiversity Areas Change in habitat distribution & ecosystem composition and structure within Key Biodiversity Areas Quantity and quality of habitat is among the indicators most highly correlated with the ability of species to persist an a site. Ecosystem features such as architectural, keystone and indicator species represent biotic components that characterize the ecological integrity of a system. Priority indicators for implementation:

14. Promoting a standard ecological monitoring approach • Satellite Imagery is an effective tool for delineating geological/physical features (reef flat, reef crest, barrier reef, deep reef) Field sampling possesses higher reliability values when measuring change detection in habitat distribution and community composition

15. Provides early warning information to counteract impending biodiversity loss with adaptive management action. Promotes systematic and quantitative broad-scale sampling of critical biotic components. Further species of interest can be integrated into the sampling strategy Promoting a standard ecological monitoring approach

16. Potential to incorporate long-term population data into an easily interpretable and measurable index of ecological integrity An ecosystem-based indicator aggregating ecological dynamics that reports changing levels of ecological condition Requires identifying an ecosystem’s ‘vital signs’ parameters Research needs: Understanding of regional biological and ecological characteristics Establish baseline reference point to evaluate divergence of ecological integrity Identify population thresholds and multiple states for index values Reporting changes in Ecological composition in seascapes:

17. ‘Corridors Consolidated’ 4) Connectivity allows natural biotic interactions to be maintained: Change in relative/absolute abundance & distribution patterns of migratory/corridor-utilizing species. Marine corridors should not be gauged a success unless population numbers of migratory utilizing species are stable or increasing (Edgar & Garske, 2005) Species level indicator that directly measures population trends of regionally specific wide-ranging species at life history bottlenecks Priority indicators for implementation:

18. Additional Indicators for measurement: • ‘Extinctions Avoided’ • 5) Target species of biodiversity importance are maintained • at Key biodiversity Areas: • Change in relative/absolute abundance of • conservation relevant target species (threatened, endemic, • congregational species, range restricted, biome restricted • assemblages)

19. ‘Extinctions Avoided’ 6) Globally threatened species are being studied: % of threatened species with ongoing studies or Conservation actions that focus on ecology, population or distribution ‘Extinctions Avoided’ 7) Species are nationally protected: % of threatened species that have protected status in each nation Additional Indicators for measurement cont…

20. ‘Areas Protected’ 8) Management plans and governance structures exist & are adopted: Change in number of protected Key Biodiversity Areas with management plans in place Formal management plan approved by management institution Action plans for globally threatened species articulated Education awareness strategy articulated Monitoring plan articulated Financing strategy articulated Staffing needs articulated Strategy for tenure rights disputes articulated Additional Indicators for measurement cont…

21. ‘Areas Protected’ 9) Management plans and governance structures exist & are adopted: Change in number of protected Key Biodiversity Areas with governance structures in place ‘Areas Protected’ Enforcement strategy Number of guards/wardens active in marine protected area System for information exchange among local communities in decision making associated with land use Additional Indicators for measurement cont…

22. ‘Corridors Consolidated’ 10) National fishing legislative & regulation plans exist: Change in number of national legislative plans in place to reduce Fishing pressure Additional Indicators for measurement cont…

23. Establishing Regional Monitoring networks to ensure sustainability and consistency in data collection and reporting. Key stakeholders with defined technical roles & responsibilities Complementary indicators with standardized measurement protocols Centralized & compatible data housing and analysis infrastructures Collaborative dissemination efforts (workshops, publications) Fundraising strategy driven by multiple partners Implementing & Sustaining Outcomes Monitoring

24. Implementing & Sustaining Outcomes Monitoring Questions to address through participatory consultation: • What level of sampling resolution is realistic and what will it tell us? • What existing regional networks can be leveraged? • How will consistent and regular reporting be ensured? • What form will the information analysis and reporting structure take and how will information be disseminated? • Which parties will take responsibility for each link in the chain? • What specific strategies are realistic for long-term funding?

25. Deliverables for FY07 • Applying regional perspective to the global outcomes monitoring model • Identify partner capacity & support strengthening of monitoring networks in Seascapes (Regional workshops) • Communicate outcomes definition and monitoring framework • Better institutionalize marine outcomes monitoring indicators • Disseminate framework and indicators to seascape teams for feedback.