Multi-Area Conservation Strategies

1. Multi-Area Conservation Strategies

2. Purposes • Multi-area conservation strategies should explicitly serve one or more of the following purposes: • To abate threats at multiple conservation areas • To enhance the viability of conservation targets at multiple conservation areas • To build capacity or generate demonstrable leverage towards the successful application of some other conservation strategy • The multiple conservation areas may be within or across operating units, political jurisdictions, large-scale project areas, ecoregions, or other relevant aggregations

3. Types of Multi-Area Strategies • Establishing Systems of Conservation Areas • Securing Public Funds for Conservation • Securing Tax or Market-Based Incentives for Conservation • Developing Conservation Institutions • Replicating Successful Strategies Across Multiple Areas • Improving Public Policies to Abate Threats

4. Systems of Conservation Areas • Public or private officially designated systems of conservation areas • Degree of assured protection may vary greatly -- from strictly voluntary to high levels of statutory protection • TNC role may range from providing information to decision-makers to active development of conservation area systems • Examples: • Wilderness Act (no major TNC involvement) • State Nature Preserve Systems • State registry programs -- voluntary landowner agreements • Providing ecoregional or site-specific information to USFS for designation of natural areas or for 10-year plans • Westvaco designation of natural areas on company lands

5. Public Policies • Many public policies to abate threats are regulatory in nature, but can be an important tool • Examples • Endangered Species Act • NEPA and Clean Water Act (no major TNC involvement) • State Heritage inventory programs were one of the “original” multi-area strategies, beyond their basic inventory function, by connecting to NEPA • California NCCP (conservation planning for coastal sage scrub) • State and federal fire management policies • Statewide, regional or county-level growth management policies • TNC role may range from providing information to decision-makers to active engagement -- but is always non-confrontational and solution-oriented

6. Public Funds for Conservation • Includes both direct public funds and tax incentives • Examples • LWCF • Parks in Peril • State & local bond initiatives and other dedicated funding sources • State tax credits for easement donations • 50% capital gains exclusion on conservation sales • Debt-for-nature swaps & conservation trust funds • Carbon mitigation funds • 1 cent water tax to protect source of water/watershed • Transportation mitigation funds • Farm Bill

7. Conservation Institutions • Has been a cornerstone strategy with partners internationally, as well as internally for TNC in the United States • Institutions may be focused country-wide, statewide, regionally, or on one or more functional landscapes • Examples • Development of TNC state programs in the late 1970s and 1980s were one of the “original” multi-area strategies • Development of new in-country organizations • Australia Conservation Fellows: Eight TNC veterans have provided expertise, experience & technical assistance to four leading conservation organizations on targeted assignments • Broad or deep “capacity-building” support to country and regional NGOs • e.g. Pronatura Noreste; Colorado Cattleman’s Land Trust

8. Replicating Successful Strategies • Developing innovative strategies at action sites and replicating those that prove successful -- e.g. • Bargain sales & govt. co-op land purchases -- from the early 1970s • Demonstration of successful fire management practices • Conservation buyers • Locally funded PDR programs (purchase of development rights) • Application of HCPs (Habitat Conservation Plans) and safe-harbor agreements • Weed co-ops with local ranchers & agencies • Working with Corps of Engineers on dam operations • Applications of many varied federal programs -- e.g. fencing cattle from riparian areas & providing alternative water sources • Need to consider more systematic approach for “diffusion of innovations”

9. Diffusion of Innovations • Successful diffusion of an innovation depends upon: • Relative advantage to which the innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supercedes • Compatibility with the existing values, past experiences and needs of the potential adopters • Simplicity -- the degree to which the innovation is not difficult to understand and use • Trialability -- the degree to which the innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis • Observability -- the degree to which the innovation is visible to others

10. Diffusion of Innovations • Diffusion is fundamentally a social process • Most people depend upon a subjective evaluation of an innovation that is conveyed to them by people like themselves (interpersonal networks with near peers) • The greater the members are connected by interpersonal networks, the better the diffusion • Opinion leaders who influence others informally in a desired way with relative frequency • Weak ties can be more important than strong ties From “Diffusion of Innovations”, 4th edition, by Everett Rogers

11. Other Multi-Area Strategies • The preceding five categories capture the largest number of multi-area strategies. • Other potential fruitful arenas • Market-based incentives for conservation • Certification of forest products or sustainable forestry practices • Engagement with the forest industry to develop sustainable forestry standards • Value-added premiums for conservation-based production, such as Conservation Beef • Conservation “scorecards” • Conservation organizations use varied scorecards (e.g. 10 most endangered parks, rivers, etc…; Chesapeake Bay Fdtn’s annual “State of the Bay”) to point attention to areas or issues

12. Multi-Area Strategies to Abate Threats • Conditions Required… • Abating a threat (or enhancing viability) requires that strategic action be taken at a scale beyond individual sites • The threat is ranked “High” or “Very High” across multiple occurrences of a target • The threat manifests itself in a similar way across multiple occurrences of a common target • Or… • Capacity for strategic action across multiple areas (e.g. $$) can be better developed at a larger scale than individual sites (e.g. state/province/national)

13. Formulating Multi-Area Strategies to Abate Threats • The Same as Single-Area Strategies... • Clearly link the source to the stress to the system & a key ecological attribute... in order to show real impact on a target’s viability • Determine the desired outcome from abating the threat - the objective that we seek • Objective must be related back to a key ecological attribute benchmark for “Good” • Develop compelling strategic actions & action steps to achieve the objective • Assess Benefits/Feasibility/Cost to compare the proposed strategy to others • Secure lead individual to assume responsibility for implementing the strategy

14. Trade-Offs • There is a probable trade-off to consider between single-area strategies and multi-area strategies: conservation impact vs. scope • Highly focused strategies at functional landscapes may be more likely to achieve tangible, enduring results (impact) -- but at a fewer number of conservation areas (scope) • Strategies that seek to influence conservation at multiple areas have a broader reach (scope) -- but not produce as much certainty of tangible, enduring results (impact)

15. Is there a “sweet spot” on the curve? Direct TNC Action at 20 Landscapes Influencing Partners at 200 Sites Tangible, Enduring Results vs. Working at Scale High IMPACT: Tangible Enduring Results -- Threat Abatement & Enhanced Health of Targets C B A Low SCOPE: Number of Areas Impacted High

16. Not “Either-Or”... • Single-area & multi-area strategies are not mutually exclusive • Focused action at a small number of landscapes will achieve enormous & enduring portfolio conservation • In a typical U.S. ecoregion, an average of 25 functional landscapes captures: • All coarse-scale ecological systems, across an array of environmental gradients • Two-thirds of the conservation targets in each ecoregion, on the average • Over half of all target occurrences, on the average • Direct action at functional landscapes also provides benefits in relation to multi-area strategies • A testing and proving ground for new strategies • High credibility for TNC with agencies, partners & donors

17. Locus of Action • The best locus of action will differ for each multi-area strategy • The locus for a given strategy might be: • Large-scale conservation program area, with multiple sites • State/province -- within a state/province or statewide • Regional -- networks of conservation areas with similar targets, threats, institutions, etc. • National -- within a country or country-wide • Institutional -- focused within a targeted agency or organization • Ecoregions are an ideal locus for setting priorities; however, for most multi-area strategies ecoregions are not an ideal locus for taking action • “Structure follows strategy” -- the development of the strategy should guide the locus for action and implementation structure, not vice-versa

18. Evaluating Strategies • Both single-area and multi-area strategies can be evaluated by the same broad conceptual framework: Benefits, Feasibility & Cost • Benefits include impact, scope, duration & leverage, plus TNC’s value added: • Impact • Degree of threat abatement secured, and the criticality of threats • Degree of enhanced viability for conservation targets • Scope: number of conservation targets and/or areas impacted • Duration: probable duration of the impacts (i.e. potential for enduring results) • Leverage: in some cases, engagement in a particular strategy may generate leverage for other conservation strategies (e.g. development of political support) • TNC Value Added: What degree of contribution and improvement to the benefits is TNC likely to make with its proposed engagement ?

19. Evaluating Strategies (continued) • Feasibility of successful implementation is determined by • Availability of talented staff to lead the strategy • The ability to motivate & engage key constituencies or partners • Inherent complexity of the undertaking • Ability to secure funds • Costs • Estimated cost of proposed Conservancy engagement • Consider the source of funding • Discretionary funds in hand • New dollars that could go to several different purposes • New dollars that can only go to one purpose • The overall evaluation of engagement in a strategy is a function of the Benefits, Feasibility and Costs

20. Evaluating Strategies The overall “Strategy Opportunity” Rank is a function of Benefits, Feasibility & Costs

21. Some Issues • Who takes responsibility for strategies that require leadership, or even action, beyond the project area? • TNC (and probably many other organizations) lack a process for even evaluating the many multi-area strategies that might flow up from project teams, let alone a process for “handing off” responsibility • Is the multi-area strategy in lieu of… or in addition to… single area (e.g invasives) • What works best at what scale • What is the value added -- effective/efficient