BCNet
    Appendix B: Guidelines for Assessing Conservation Success (Y-Axis)

Materials in this Appendix are drawn from: Nick Salafsky and Richard Margoluis (1998) Measuring Conservation Project Success: Developing a Standardized Index for Comparing and Analyzing Biodiversity Conservation Network (BCN) Funded Projects. Draft Working Paper, Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC.

We will collect data for the following components of the Y-Axis:

Each of the following provides the instructions as to how data will be collected to assess these components.

Y1. Percent Change in Habitat Area

Basic Description: Change in the amount of habitat at the site. For example, in a forested habitat, this indicator measures the number of hectares of forest present at the start and at the end of the project period. For a reef habitat, it measures the area of reef at the start and finish.

Definitions:
Core habitat = As described in the site definition. This definition will have to include the cut-off point at which severely degraded habitat is no longer considered -- for example a "reef" with no living coral is no longer a reef.

Measurement and Calculation: This factor can be measured in a variety of ways depending on data availability. One method might involve using remote sensing equipment to gather landscape use data that are assessed using a Geographic Information System (GIS). Another method might involve community member observations and knowledge on a map of the site.

This factor will be calculated as a percentage:

Change in habitat area (%) = Area End
Area Start		 * 100

Area Start = Area of habitat at T0.
Area End = Area of habitat at TF.

Y2. Resource Sustainability Index

Basic Description: Impact of enterprise activities on resource species. For pure tourism and other non-extractive enterprises, this index will be by definition 100. Although a qualitative ranking system is outlined below, each of the three parameters can also be measured more quantitatively.1

Definitions:
Resource Species = Plant or animal species used as part of the core enterprise production process.

Measurement and Calculation: This factor will be calculated using a subjective ranking system on the following criteria:

a. Resource stock
Amount of resource in habitat.		 5 = abundant
4 = common
3 = common but declining
2 = rare
1 = endangered
b. Harvest impact on individuals
Harvest impact on individuals needs to be considered both theoretically and in practice. For example, harvest of fallen fruit theoretically has no impact on the tree whereas harvest of wood is fatal for the tree. If, however, the harvester breaks off tree branches or cuts down the tree to harvest fruit, then harvesting might actually have lots or even fatal impact. This impact may change with time and from harvester to harvester -- for purposes of this index, consider the average or most prevalent practice at your site for harvesting the typical plant or animal.		 5 = none
4 = minimal
3 = some
2 = lots
1 = fatal
c. Harvest relative to regrowth or regeneration
Regrowth applies to individual plants or animals, e.g., regrowth of a rattan plant after it is cut. Regeneration applies to populations of plants or animals, e.g., dispersal of seeds. The key here is to assess how much of the stock of the resource is maintained in the next generation of organisms. This can include the shoots of rattan plants that regrow, the offspring of surviving herbs or fish that take the place of harvested individuals, or the volume of timber that is added to the standing trees in a hectare of forest. Note that several time scales can operate here -- for instance harvesting fruits of a tree might not affect regeneration of the next generation (current saplings growing into adults) but it will affect regeneration of the following generation (the offspring of the current adults).		 5 = total regeneration
4 = lots
3 = some
2 = minimal
1= none
Total: Calculate the final score as (Xa + Xb + Xc)(100/15) where X represents the score for each factor above. 100 = Sustainable
0 = Not sustainable

Y3. Threat Reduction Assessment (TRA)

Basic Description: An assessment of the progress in meeting threats to biodiversity, a proxy measurement of actual conservation of biodiversity.2 The TRA approach to measuring project success is based on three key assumptions:

  1. All biodiversity destruction is human induced. Loss of species or habitats due to natural processes such as fires or hurricanes is not considered a threat to biodiversity. Note however, that human induced increases in the magnitude or frequency of such catastrophic events can be considered as threats.

  2. All threats to biodiversity at a given site can be identified, disaggregated from one another, and ranked in terms of their scale, intensity, and urgency. At any given point in time, project teams can determine all the direct threats to biodiversity that exist at the project site. The teams can also separate out the effects of different threats and can rank them in terms of their magnitude, degree of impact, and timing.

  3. Reductions in all threats can be measured or at least estimated. Project teams or outside observers will be able to systematically (either quantitatively or qualitatively) assess the degree of reduction of all threats at any given time.

Definitions:
Direct Threats = Threats that immediately impact the biodiversity at the site (e.g., logging by companies).

Indirect Threats = Threats that do not direct affect biodiversity (e.g., poverty, which causes logging).

Area = The percentage of the habitat(s) in the site that the threat will affect -- will it affect all of the habitat at the site or just a small part?

Intensity = The impact of the threat on a smaller scale -- within the overall area, will the threat completely destroy the habitat(s) or will it cause only minor changes?

Urgency = The immediacy of the threat -- will it occur tomorrow or in twenty-five years?

Measurements and Calculation: This factor will be calculated using the following procedure:

  1. Develop a list of all direct threats to the biodiversity at the project site present at the start date. Indirect threats that operate through direct threats should not be included in the list. It is necessary, however, to list separately direct threats that come from different proximate or ultimate causes (e.g., hunting for subsistence or hunting for market sale) or that are done by different actors (e.g., local people clearing forest for agricultural gardens and external companies clearing forest to produce timber for commercial sale). As you identify each threat, you should also define what 100% meeting this threat will entail as outlined in the explanations beneath the table.

  2. Rank each threat based on three criteria: Area, Intensity, and Urgency. As shown in Columns B - D, total up the number of threats and assign this number (n) to the highest ranking threat in each category. Assign the next highest ranked threat in each category the score n - 1. Continue ranking the threats until you get the lowest ranked threat which is 1. It is often helpful to write all the threats on separate slips of paper which can then be moved up or down relative to one another to create the rankings.

  3. Total up the score across the two criteria. Add up Columns B - D to get the total ranking shown in Column E.

  4. Determine the degree to which each threat has been met. At the end date of the assessment project, determine the degree to which each threat has been met. These assessments can be made either quantitatively (e.g., area of forest that has not been clear-cut by logging firms or reduction in numbers of animals hunted) or qualitatively (e.g., rank intensity of clearing for agriculture on a scale of 1 - 5 or assess local expert opinion on the level of hunting) depending on the type of threat and the data that are available. As shown in Column F, in either case, the reduction in threat should be expressed as the percentage change in the original threat identified at the start of the project.

  5. Calculate the raw score for each threat. Multiply the point total by the percentage to get the raw score for each threat as shown in Column G.

Sample Calculation of Threat Index
Data drawn from an interview with field staff from the Haia site at the BCN-funded Crater Mountain Wildlife Management Area (CMWMA) Project in Papau New Guinea.
A B C D E F G H
Threat Area Ranking Intensity Ranking Urgency Ranking Total Ranking Threat Met Raw Score TRA Index
Hunting (subsistence) 5 3 4 12 15% 1.8
Logging (corperate) 2 5 1 8 50% 4.0
Expansion of Gardens 4 1 5 10 5% 0.5
Hunting (market) 3 2 3 8 0% 0.0
Mining 1 4 2 7 100% 7.0
TOTAL 15 15 15 45
13.3 30%

Explanation of Threats

Hunting (subsistence) -- Harvesting of birds and mammals by local people for their own consumption. 100% reduction involves harvesting animals on a substainable basis through setting up and implementing hunting regulations.

Logging (corperate) -- Timber harvesting conducted by large multinational firms. 100% reduction involves elimainating logging and any plans for logging in the boundries of the CMWMA.

Expansion of Gardens -- Cutting primary forest to make subsistence agricultural plots. 100% reduction involves eliminating expansion of gardens into areas of primary forest.

Hunting (market) -- Harvesting of selected bird and mammal species that are commercial commodities. 100% reduction involves harvesting animals on a sustainable basis through setting up and implementing hunting regulations.

Mining -- Mineral extraction conducted by large multinational firms. 100% reduction involves eliminating mining and any plans for mining in the boundries of the CMWMA.

Y4. Future Conservation Success -- Monitoring and Response

Basic Description: An assessment of the presence of an institution doing monitoring that can detect and respond to new threats to the biodiversity of the site.

Definitions:
Institution = See definition in contextual variables.

Calculation: This factor will be calculated using a subjective ranking system on the following criteria:

Ranking: The ranking in terms of the above criteria is:

Ranking Points
Perfectly meets criteria 5 points
Meets most 4
Meets some 3
Meets few 2
Meets almost none 1
Meets none 0

1 See Peters, Charles (1994) Sustainable harvest of of Non-Timber Plant Resources in Tropical Moist Forest: An Ecological Primer, Biodeversity Support Program, Washington, DC USA, for details about how to make more quantitative measurements of harvest impact.

2 See Salafsky, Nick and Richard Margoluis (1998) The Threat Reduction Assessment (TRA) Approach to Measuring Conservation Success: A Practicle and Cost-Effective Framework for Assessing Project Impact. BSP Working Paper.


<--- RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS --->


WHY BIODIVERSITY   FIELD STORIES   PARTICIPATE   RESULTS   MARKETSPACE

ABOUT THE NETWORK   WHAT'S NEW   LEARNING MATERIALS   SEARCH   LINKS   SITE MAP   HOME