The process of developing effective conservation strategies involves five main steps: 1. Review the project vision and goals;
2. Define objectives for abating the critical threats and restoring the viability of
focal conservation targets and for securing project resources;
3. Using your situation analysis, evaluate the social, political, and economic
context contributing to threats and supporting conservation within the project
area;
4. Brainstorm potential strategic actions that might accomplish each objective, or
multiple objectives;
5. Select strategic actions to implement based on benefits, feasibility and costs. Although the ordered presentation of the steps suggests a customary sequence, in practice steps 2 through 4 are often combined, re-ordered, or otherwise intermingled. üThe CAP Workbook contains spreadsheets and a Strategy Identification Wizard to facilitate the capture of necessary information relating to the development of Objectives and Strategic Actions.
1. Review the project vision and goalsThe project vision and goals defines overall project success, and provides the touchstone to ensure that objectives and actions are of sufficient scope and scale to achieve the vision and goals. 2. Define measurable objectivesGenerally stated, the primary conservation project objectives are to abate threats and to restore or maintain the viability of focal conservation targets. But there may not be the need, nor may a project have the resources, to take action on all threats, focal targets, and resource needs. To provide focus for the strategic actions, a project team must define specific, measurable objectives for critical threats, significantly degraded key ecological attributes and urgent project resource deficiencies—outcomes that must be accomplished in order to achieve the project goal. Review the list of critical threats and degraded key ecological attributes, as well as the underlying causal factors for each as identified in the situation analysis. Critical threats are those sources of stress with an Overall Threat Rank of Very High or High. Degraded key ecological attributes are those that have a current rating of Fair or Poor. Describe the desired outcome that you believe will reduce threats or improve target status to your desired levels. Generally, an objective should be set for each of the critical threats, because threat abatement typically is accomplished through direct conservation action. On the other hand, some degraded key ecological attributes may be restored through the abatement of critical threats and not need direct action. Thus, when setting objectives with respect to degraded key ecological attributes, focus on those attributes that will need direct conservation action (e.g., ecological restoration). Objectives also should be set with respect to project resource factors (Step 9: Implement Plans). These resource factors are typically assessed once your team has a solid understanding of the objectives and strategic actions related to abating critical threats and maintaining or restoring the viability of conservation targets. Objectives should be set for each of the significant project resource needs, as indicated by the resource factor scores and any limiting information or knowledge gaps that require research and development. Resource factors most in need of attention are those with a Resource Score of Medium or Low. The objective should describe the desired outcome that you believe will improve resource status to your desired levels. The list of critical threats, degraded key ecological attributes, and resource factors for which you establish objectives can be further narrowed and refined based on the urgency, feasibility and resources required to adequately abate the threat, restore the key ecological attribute, or secure the needed project resources. In addition to threat abatement and target viability objectives, you also may find it useful to state “intermediate results,” which are specific benchmarks or milestones that your project will work to achieve in route to accomplishing your threat abatement or viability objectives. In this case, “intermediate” typically refers to a temporal dimension. 3. Evaluate context of threats to and support for conservationCritical threats and degraded key ecological attributes typically result from incompatible economic activities and management of natural resources. Understanding the cultural, political, and economic setting as well as incompatible human uses of natural resources is essential for developing effective actions because the context represents both the driving forces behind the critical threats and degraded viability as well as the opportunities for abating the threats, restoring viability, and securing project resources and support. Thus, before brainstorming and selecting actions, project teams must first probe deeply into the critical threats, their potential underlying causes, opportunities for action, and the linkages to focal conservation targets and other threats. Such probing should build upon the existing situation analysis (Step 5: Complete Situation Analysis), and should focus on those critical threats and key ecological attributes for which objectives have been set. Some project teams use conceptual models (e.g., situation diagrams) to discover and represent the linkages. Others use probing questions looking at potential causes, the scale at which the threats and systems operate, the key constituencies that are harmed by the threat or might benefit from its abatement, etc. Using probing questions to discover underlying causes in combination with conceptual models to visually represent threat factors and their linkages is a particularly effective approach. 4. Brainstorm potential strategic actionsBased on your focused probing of the situation, consider the array of strategic actions that collectively might accomplish the objectives. Some strategic actions will apply to a single objective; others will be relevant to multiple objectives. Your understanding of each critical threat, degraded key attribute and project resource need and their underlying causes should help you identify the appropriate strategic actions and points of intervention to achieve the objectives. The most appropriate point of intervention may be at the key ecological attribute (e.g. restoration), at the critical threat, or at a causal factor more distal in the chain of causation (Box 3). The types of actions your team might consider to achieve its objectives will be varied, depending on the specific situation of your project, but typically will include a mix of: • Land and water protection
• Land and water management
• Species management
• Education and awareness
• Law and policy
• Livelihood, economic and other incentives
• External capacity building Any action identified by your team needs to be explicitly linked to one or more objectives. BOX 2: Setting Objectives and Selecting Strategic ActionsAn objective should focus on either a critical threat or a degraded key ecological attribute of a focal conservation target. The point of intervention of strategic actions to accomplish the objective may be directly at the critical threat or at other factors further back in the causal chain. For example, consider a riparian system target with salmon that is stressed by low river flow in mid-summer; low flow results in elevated water temperature and increased fish mortality. The low river flow is directly caused by agricultural water diversion, which in turn is caused by incompatible agricultural practices (i.e., growing high-water demand crops). The project team has set a threat abatement objective focused on the critical threat of groundwater pumping: “By 2010, reduce the amount of water from the Blue River diverted for agricultural purposes from 5000 gallons/day to 1000 gallons/day”. The strategic action to accomplish the objective is to convince farmers to switch to crops that require less water through incentives or legislative mandates. In this case, the point of intervention is at the causal factor (agricultural practices), not directly at the critical threat (water diversion). The diagram shows the presumed linkages between the strategic action, causal factor, direct threat, and conservation target.  |
5. Select priority strategic actionsThe potential strategic actions identified through the brainstorming exercise should be evaluated to select those actions that, if implemented, will most effectively and efficiently accomplish the objectives. We recommend that potential strategic actions be evaluated and rated using three criteria: Benefits, Feasibility, and Cost. Benefits - The benefits of a given strategic action derive from directly achieving threat and viability objectives (direct benefit) as well as from enabling or catalyzing the implementation of another strategic action (indirect benefit or leverage). To assess the potential benefits of a strategic action, consider four factors: - Scope and scale of outcome - The degree to which the proposed strategic action, if successfully implemented, is likely to secure the desired objective(s) at a scope and scale—degree of intensity and/or spatial scale—sufficient to reduce critical threat ranks to one or more focal conservation targets to a Medium rank and/or to increase a key ecological attribute to a Good rank for one or more focal conservation targets.
- Contribution - The degree to which the proposed strategic action, if successfully implemented, will contribute to the achievement of the objective.
- Duration of outcome - The degree to which the proposed strategic action, if successfully implemented, is likely to secure a long-lasting outcome. Strategic actions likely to achieve enduring, long-lasting outcomes are most desirable; those with short duration less desirable, all other things being equal.
- Leverage - The degree to which the proposed strategic action, if successfully implemented, will enable or catalyze the implementation of other strategic actions (and thus achieve other important objectives), either within the immediate conservation project, or elsewhere.
Note that “scope and scale of outcome” may not be applicable to strategic actions linked to project resource objectives because such actions are unlikely to have the direct benefit of threat abatement or viability enhancement; rather, they have an indirect benefit derived from leverage. Feasibility - Overall feasibility of a strategic action is based on three factors: - Lead individual and institution - The availability of a lead individual with sufficient time, proven talent, relevant experience, and good institutional support to implement the strategic action.
- Ability to motivate key constituencies - The degree to which key constituencies (e.g., landowners, public officials, interest groups) whose involvement is necessary to implementing the strategic action and their motives are understood and the action appeals.
- Ease of implementation - Strategic actions that are less complex, have been successfully implemented previously, fit within the core competencies of the lead institution, and for which funding is accessible have a higher likelihood of success than other actions.
Cost - Strategic action costs should be estimated for the time horizon of the strategy, but no longer than 10 years. Cost estimates should focus on the use of discretionary or unrestricted dollars (or other appropriate currency). Overall cost of a strategic action is based on four factors: - One time cost - The amount of any direct, one-time costs.
- Annual costs - Other direct costs, excluding staff time, that will be accrued annually.
- Staff time - The average number of staff (FTE) required to implement the strategic action.
- Number of years - The number of years the strategic action will require staff time and annual costs for implementation.
The overall rank for each strategic action, based upon Benefits, Feasibility, and Cost, should serve as a guide for selecting the strategic actions to implement. The scoring system in the ü CAP Workbook is designed to reward strategic actions that produce very high benefits for reasonable cost. It also identifies strategic actions that are “low-hanging fruit”, i.e., lower cost actions with medium benefits that are very feasible to implement. These rankings are not intended to provide a “perfect” evaluation, but rather to provide you with a relative assessment of an array of potential strategic actions. Your project team will still need to use good judgment and experience to decide which strategic actions to implement. Finally, the strategic actions represent broad courses of action, but do not provide the specificity needed to take action. In order to implement your strategic actions, your team will need to identify the specific action steps that spell out the actual work to be done, including who’s responsible for doing it and a timeline (see Step 8: Develop Work Plans). BOX 3: Fostering a Planning Environment Conducive to Developing StrategiesDeveloping effective conservation strategies typically requires a more creative approach than the more analytical process of assessing conservation targets and threats. Thus, it is important to create an environment that fosters creativity, innovation, and “out of the box” thinking. While there is no exact recipe for creativity, bringing together people with the right set of skills and competencies into a nurturing environment should facilitate the process. Here are some key ingredients to consider: Skills, Competencies, and Personalities for Developing Strategies - Knowledge of project area:
- Ecology and Conservation Targets
- Socio-economics
- Politics
- Culture - Creative thinking
- Analytical thinking
- Conceptual thinking (to bring the process/outputs into comprehensible and unified form)
- Facilitation - to ensure that the process moves forward and is designed to foster new ideas to emerge through creative brainstorming and open, critical review ("tough love")
- Subject expert (to bring knowledge from relevant disciplines such as government relations, philanthropy and marketing, etc.)
- External perspective
- Influence and respect (both internally and outside of your organization)
- Responsibility for implementation
Creating the Right Environment for Developing Strategies - Importance of place (e.g., inspiring location, comfortable meeting room)
- Good set up (clear expectations and compelling agenda for meeting/process)
- Build in down time – this is when innovative thinking and synthesis often occurs
- Field trips to see targets, threats, situation - Right mix of skills, competencies, and personalities (see above); often times, critical strategic thinkers will not have been deeply involved in the assessment of targets and threats, and will need to be brought into the process for developing strategies.
- Iterations – a single planning meeting may not be sufficient to design good strategies; often, inspiration and creativity are the products of cumulative and increasingly more informed assessments of the conservation situation.
|
|
Conservation by Design Gateway
