Navigating in a sea of risks: MARISCO, a conservation planning method used in risk robust and ecosystem based adaptation strategies

Navigating in a sea of risks: MARISCO, a conservation planning method used in risk robust and ecosystem based adaptation strategies

CC & Nature Conservation in Europe 25-27 June 2013, Bonn/Germany Stefan Kreft 1 Daniela Aschenbrenner 1 Christoph Nowicki 1 Steffen Reichle 2 Lena Strixner 1 Peter Hobson 3 Pierre L. Ibisch 1 1 Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management., Faculty of Forest and Environment, Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development, Germany. 2 Fundación para la Conservación del Bosque Chiquitano, Bolivia. 3 Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management., Writtle College, University of Essex, United Kingdom. Navigating in a sea of risks: MARISCO, a conservation planning method used in risk robust and ecosystem based adaptation strategies

Exposure change Sensitivity Adaptation capacity Adaptive, proactive management Vulnerability Participatory planning Ecosystem-based management

Participatory planning Example: Establishment of adaptive, participatory, ecosystem-based Situation analysis of the state of nature conservation management in Barnim County by the Lower Nature Conservation Agency: Dynamic risk landscape management plans become increasingly outdated - and thus irrelevant - soon after their finalisation Sectoral conservation management encounters opposition by land use sectors (e.g. agriculture, forestry, water management) Institutional vulnerability and risk of strategic agony

Participatory planning Example: Establishment of adaptive, participatory, ecosystem-based Conclusions by the Lower Nature Conservation Agency: Need for flexible, continuously updated management (planning) Adaptive management! Need for integrative approach that facilitates discussions of inter-sectoral issues before conservation measures are defined Participatory planning! Further recommendations by the HNEE: consider proaction, ecosystem-based management and climate change!

Climate change adaptation?!? By the way: Survey of conservation decision-makers attitude towards climate change adaptation Approx. 50 questionnaires sent out 22 decision-makers were willing to take part in telephone interviews of one hour Results: Most interviewees considered climate change to be relevant Several interviewees think other challenges (e.g., biofuels) (should) consume resources otherwise dedicated to adaptation action to CC Among a set of potential adaptation options, adaptive management considered one of the most useful ones

I. Preparation and initial conceptualisation Adaptive Risk and Vulnerability Management at Conservation Sites P. Ibisch (2013) IV. Implementation + (non )knowledge management 26. Organization of institutional learning and share with other projects/ initiatives 24. Monitoring of results and impacts and research 23. Operational planning and implementation of measures 22. Result webs and monitoring design 21. Overall consistency and strategy plausibility, spatial requirements for strategy application, revision of scope and vision 27. Evaluation and revision of the underlying concept 25. Knowledge and non knowledge management (incl. early detection and assessment of risks 0. Ecosystem Diagnostics Analysis 1. Scope of management and study 2. Biodiversity objects 19. Analysis of strategic gaps and strategic modification, if applicable complementary strategies formulation 3. Ecosystem services/human wellbeing objects 4. Initial management vision 5. Assessment of the current status of the biodiversity objects key attributes stresses 17. Identification of existing strategies incl. mapping in the vulnerability model 6. Threats 7. Positive and negative factors influencing vulnerability 8. Grouping of factors (biophysical, socioeconomic, governance, institutional, spatial) 9. Spatial distribution 11. Future scenarios 18. + 20. Assessment and prioritisation feasibility (a) resources; b) acceptance; c) use of opportunities; d) risk robustness; e) adaptability impact (a) creation of conflicts; b) contribution to vulnerability; c) synergies with strategies; d) conflicts with other strategies; e) threat abatement; f) increase of objects functionality; g) potential regret III. Comprehensive evaluation, prioritisation and strategy formulation Description of stresses/ threats/ contributing factors 10. Analysis of criticality current 20 years ago current trend 12. Analysis of future dynamics and risks criticality in 20 years new factors 13. Analysis of systemic activity, target relevance and strategic relevance 14. Analysis of manageability and knowledge 15. Analysis of actors and stakeholders 16. Revision and validation II. Systemic vulnerability and risk analysis

Adaptive management & risk research Germany Brandenburg UK Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB Ukraine Carpathian Biosphere Reserve Guatemala Parque Nacional Sierra del Lacandón Costa Rica PPNN Cahuita, Manuel Antonio Albania Lake Shkoder DAAD Russia/Kazachstan Altai Transboundary Biosphere Reserve China 3 PAs, Prov. Jiangxi Peru Reserva Comunal El Sira Ecuador Reserva Comunal Siete Iglesias Bolivia Área Natural de Manejo Integrado Rio Grande Valles Cruceños Student theses (selection) CAP (PRO-CAP) Open Standards (+) Open Standards (++) Vulnerab.-Open Standards Risk-Vulnerab.-Open Standards / MARISCO March 2013

China Russia Guatemala Bsp. Adaptive management hier cmp Und bilder von workshops Albania England Peru Ukraine Costa Rica

Example: Establishment of adaptive, participatory, ecosystem-based Goals: Kick-off of the cooperation Definition of the biodiversity conservation objects Elaboration of a conceptual model including stresses, threats and contributing factors Approx. 20 participants from governmental administrations, NGOs and research institutions Lessons learned: Kick-off workshop: November 2011 Broad interest in participation by administrations, NGOs and research institutions, also beyond the conservation sector Conceptual model plausible, but need for some complementary desk work

Example: Establishment of adaptive, participatory, ecosystem-based Goals: Validate re-worked conceptual model Arrive at complete picture of the strategic relevance of stresses, threats and contributing factors 8 + 8 participants from governmental administrations, NGOs and research institutions Lessons learned: 2 ecosystem-focused workshops: March 2013 Discussion aiming at consensual decisions facilitate proactive intersectoral alignment of management goals Process too complex/slow for limited time resources of participants

Example: Establishment of adaptive, participatory, ecosystem-based Goals: Arrive at complete picture of the strategic relevance of stresses, threats and contributing factors 2 + 5 + 2 + 1 participants from research institutions (with 1 expert from a water management agency) 4 expert consultations: May 2013 Lessons learned: Reduction of number of participants provides the desired complete picture Good scientific expertise particularly on stresses of ecosystems Climate change aspects (temperature rise, increase of precipitation variability, strong winds etc.) turn out to be among the most critical threats

Example: Establishment of adaptive, participatory, ecosystem-based Goals: Methodological update Validate complete situation analysis Compile existing conservation strategies and discuss strategic gaps 17 participants from governmental administrations, NGOs and research institutions Lessons learned: Transdisciplinary workshop: June 2013 Balance between interests/capacities of practitioners from NGOs, administrations and research is a challenge and selects for participants willing to think in transdisciplinary ways

Participatory planning Example: Establishment of adaptive, participatory, ecosystem-based Feedback (examples): - researcher: laments lack of clear rules for scoring + politician: likes consensual decisions on semi-quantitative scores that allow for integration of expertise - governmental administrator: appreciates theory-based, structured approach + practitioner: questions value of complicated procedures and her capacity to contribute substantially

Example: Establishment of adaptive, participatory, ecosystem-based Important conclusions: MARISCO facilitates involvement of non-conservation stakeholders in conservation planning and mutual exchange of standpoints Principles of adaptive, proactive, ecosystem-based planning are captured by participants Setting up initial adaptive circle is time-consuming not included in the potential participants time budget!

Example: Establishment of adaptive, participatory, ecosystem-based Outlook: How will non-conservation standpoints be considered in management (planning)? - Contributions are ignored vs. contributions are considered binding Will the lower conservation agency have the resources to take over the process? Additional staff at the agency vs. process continuously accompanied by external planning agency Will participation be flexible - or standardised? Ad-hoc consultations vs. regularly convening, parliament-like body

Thanks a lot! For your attention To all the partners for their confidence and cooperation Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research