HCP Overview *Note: This presentation can be shortened by focussing - - PDF document

*Note: This presentation can be shortened by focussing on the following pages: 4, 6, 11, 13, 16, 18, 27, 50

HCP Overview 1

Version 3.0 was published in April 2013 and was a joint effort between many individuals and organizations.

Open Standards / Healthy Country Overview

This presentation “Introduction to the Open Standards and Healthy Country Planning” covers on 5 main topics: 1. It outlines the concept of adaptive management 2. It explains what the Open Standards are 3. It explores how Healthy Country Planning evolved out of the Open Standards and matured 4. It gives an overview of the steps of the HCP / OS process 5. It highlights some of the resources that are available to support the implementation

• f the OS / HCP

Open Standards / Healthy Country Overview

A longer List of what is planning: We plan to improve results ‐ “Studies have consistently shown that developing a clear vision, planning and setting clear goals and strategies greatly improves

• rganizational performance and success.”

It allows the community to develop a shared vision, mission, goals and activities It helps clarify roles and responsibilities It enables the development of clear management strategies that can be monitored and measured to determine whether they are working or not (eg abating a threat or improving target) It helps communities solve problems. It helps build stronger teams and helps communities to get organized. It helps projects to attract resources. Open Standards Overview

Adaptive Management is the integration of project or program planning, management, and monitoring to provide a framework for:

• Testing assumptions
• Learning
• Adapting

Adaptive management allows teams to change quickly when not going in the right direction rather than waiting until the end of a project to determine whether it worked or not. There are different definitions of adaptive management out there. This is the Conservation Measures Partnership’s definition.

February 2015

The basic project management/adaptive management cycle includes these 4 steps (some groups add a “share” step after adapt).

February 2015

Point is – there are a lot of different cycles out there, but if you really look closely at them, they are conceptually very similar. Once you learn one cycle, you probably know 90% of what you would see in any other cycle. It doesn’t matter which cycle you use – what’s important is that you follow a systematic process

February 2015

Now that we have a better understanding of the concept of adaptive management, let’s look at what the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation are.

Open Standards / Healthy Country Overview

The Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) was formed in 2002 by representatives

• f the organizations on the top line of this slide: Foundations of Success (FOS), The

Nature Conservancy (TNC), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Conservation International (CI). CMP has grown since then and each year there are new organizational members – nowadays 28 organisations are members of the Conservation Measures Partnership.

February 2015

The CMP published Version 3.0 in April 2013 and the publication was a joint effort between of many individuals and organizations.

February 2015

But why are they called Standards? Just as doctors have standard terms to describe illnesses, conservation practitioners need standard terms to describe threats to biodiversity and conservation strategies. If we use different terms to describe the threats we are addressing and the strategies we are implementing, then it will be harder for people who are working

• n the same threats / implementing the same strategies to find one another and

learn from one another. For example, if I call the threat cattle ranching and you call it grazing, then it will be harder for us to find another

February 2015

To meet this need, CMP and IUCN have worked together to develop a Taxonomy of Conservation Actions and a Taxonomy of Direct Threats to Biodiversity. In using this taxonomy of conservation actions, conservation teams use their own name for a strategy (e.g., translocation of endangered species) but then use the taxonomy to CLASSIFY their strategy as an example of Species Management. HCP is consistent with the Open Standards for Conservation Practice which has been adopted by 28 major NGO’s and some government agencies to harmonize our individual conservation approaches. So that we can learn and share across the greater conservation community with more agility. This group of parties calls themselves the Conservation Measures Partnership.

February 2015

The Open Standards give us:

• clear insight into where resources are required, and why
• clear logic behind what we want to do, and what we expect to achieve by

doing it

• a look at items in an organisation’s budget and follow it back to strategies &

expected outcomes

• clear priorities, within projects and across the organisation
• Ability to share Information across the organisation
• everyone can see how projects are tracking
• field staff can easily let people know what they are doing; they now have a

direct line right through to Directors

• Greater efficiency
• hard to quantify, but as an example, our central budget effort went from a 10

week process to 3 weeks

• Easier and more efficient reporting

Open Standards / Healthy Country Overview

Now lets look at how Healthy Country Planning developed from the Open Standards

Open Standards / Healthy Country Overview

Conservation Action Planning was originally developed in the 1990’s The Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation are a product of the collaborative work of the Conservation Measures Partnership. As a starting point, CMP members used the results of the Measuring Conservation Impact (MCI) Initiative, a 2002 study that reviewed experiences in seven fields – conservation, public health, family planning, international development, social services, education, and business – to determine common concepts of and approaches to good project design, management, and

• monitoring. The findings of MCI were compiled into a series of principles for project

cycle management/adaptive management. Building on these results, individual CMP member organizations contributed their experience in project implementation to refine the Open Standards and focus them more specifically on biodiversity conservation. Version 1.0 was released in 2004, with subsequent updates in 2007 and 2013. In 2009/10 CAP started being adapted to become later on Healthy Country Planning to suit an Indigenous community context and worldview.

Open Standards / Healthy Country Overview

The history can be broken down into 5 major phases so far: 1) The first HCP, the Uunguu HCP 2010‐2020 lead to the initial adaptations of CAP 2) With funding from TNC Indigenous conservation projects participated in a series of Open Standards workshops to learn from the Uunguu experience and to apply those learnings to their local community context. 3) Projects that participated in the training received coaching support to work through Step 1 and 2 of the HCP cycle and finalise their Plans of Management – their Healthy Country Plans 4) A group of Indigenous representatives worked with Stuart Cowell on refining the HCP process to simplify language and support materials for Indigenous conservation projects. 5) Since then Healthy Country Planning is establishing itself widely – first across the North of Australia, then Southbound. Other countries in the world are using the HCP approach – like Canada’s First Nations and other projects in Asia.

HCP Overview 16

When working with (Indigenous) communities, connection to country and planning on country for country is important. The decision making and endorsement in the HCP process is adopted to the local decision making structure / cultural requirements. Healthy Country Planning accepts that other commitments – often cultural commitments – mean that planning timelines work for local community participants. The language in HCP has been simplified and standardized to be accessible and concepts adopted to suit a holistic Indigenous world‐view that incorporates cultural and socio‐ economic dimension into the planning process.

Open Standards / Healthy Country Overview

Major steps in every HCP process are:

• 1. Work out how we will plan collaboratively (timing, language etc)
• 2. Pick a group of people to make sure the process runs well – a Working Group
• 3. Hold Community meetings / on‐country meetings to get everyone’s input
• 4. Working Group helps move through the steps
• 5. Check other work done before
• 6. Make a plan and show it to community
• 7. Put the plan into action
• 8. Get back together and check if the plan is working

HCP Overview 18

Wunambal Gaambera Traditional Owners held several on‐country meetings: sometimes the communities split into man and women groups to discuss steps of the process. It is important to note that on‐country meetings often require a lot of logistics as the locations are very remote – the on country meetings are held in the far North‐West of Australia, in the Kimberley region.

HCP Overview 19

An important aspect of HCP is that the community takes ownership of the process and the plan. In order to keep community members informed along the process and to get input and endorsement in the end of the wider group, a regular report back is of

• essence. In the Wunambal Gaambera example, workshop reports were developed and

distributed to the community after each planning phase.

HCP Overview 20

And two years down the track the Uunguu HCP has been launched on Wunambal Gaambera Country – at the Truscott Airbase. The Uunguu HCP since then has been used as an example in many places in Australia and globally.

HCP Overview 21

Afte r the Wunambal Gaambe ra plan, the n He althy Co untry T raining to o k plac e with gro ups ac ro ss No rth Australia. T raining e ve nts we re he ld in 2011 and 2012 in the K imbe rle y, the No rthe rn T e rrito ry and Que e nsland. Afte r the first gro up o f OS prac titio ne rs wo rke d thro ugh the pro c e ss the first c o ho rt o f Australian HCP c o ac he s was traine d at the Ro se gums re so rt in Que e nsland. HCP Overview 22

The language changed and was simplified, and a consistent colour coding was applied to the HCP steps to aid navigation, additional tools to support CAP Overview Printed November 2011 CAP Resources 23

Participants then proposed the need to more fully revised language and tools and a group of Indigenous representatives worked with Stuart Cowell to develop the HCP Summary Reference cards and other tools to help facilitate the HCP process with Indigenous communities. HCP Overview 24

The HCP steps are consistent with Open Standards (CAP) but in a community setting often more accessible CAP Overview Printed November 2011 CAP Resources 25

On the next few slides we give an overview of the HCP steps. Each step will be explored in more detail in later presentations.

Open Standards / Healthy Country Overview

In the HCP process the vision is sometimes called a “Dream” – how country should look like in the future – this compass tool proved helpful to ensure all dimensions of a vision are considered in this step.

CAP Overview Printed November 2011 CAP Resources 27

Targets are the important things that a project wants to conserve and look after. Healthy Country Planning includes cultural and socio‐economic targets side by side with physical, natural targets. Cultural targets can be tangible – e.g. cultural sites – or intangible – e.g. cultural practice / traditional ecological knowledge. Healthy Country Projects often use the local / traditional language of the area for

• targets. Using local language supports community empowerment and ownership.

CAP Overview Printed November 2011 CAP Resources 28

Once we determined a draft set of targets, the HCP process looks at the current and desired state of our targets. What is our current best understanding of what these things need to be “healthy”? What condition is our system in right now? And how would we want targets to be in the future.

February 2015

Health is often defined from a local perspective and the methods to measure and monitor are often a mix of traditional and western approaches.

Using indicators that community members (landowners and managers) will and have used for millennia

• Fat on the tail of kangaroo
• How kangaroo tastes
• Knowledge of stories

30

From the key ecological attributes of targets, projects develop stresses to their conservation targets and identify their sources.

February 2015

To prioritise threats HCP uses the following criteria for Direct Threat Rankings Scope – Most commonly defined spatially as the geographic scope of impact on the conservation target at the site that can reasonably be expected within 10 years under current circumstances (i.e., given the continuation of the existing situation). Very High: The direct threat is likely to be very widespread or pervasive in its scope, and affect the conservation target throughout the target’s occurrences at the site. High: The direct threat is likely to be widespread in its scope, and affect the conservation target at many of its locations at the site. Medium: The direct threat is likely to be localized in its scope, and affect the conservation target at some of the target’s locations at the site. Low: The direct threat is likely to be very localized in its scope, and affect the conservation target at a limited portion of the target’s location at the site. Severity – The level of damage to the conservation target that can reasonably be expected within 10 years under current circumstances (i.e., given the continuation of the existing situation). Very High: The direct threat is likely to destroy or eliminate the conservation target over some portion of the target’s occurrence at the site. High: The direct threat is likely to seriously degrade the conservation target over some portion of the target’s occurrence at the site. Medium: The direct threat is likely to moderately degrade the conservation

February 2015

target over some portion of the target’s occurrence at the site. Low: The direct threat is likely to only slightly impair the conservation target over some portion of the target’s occurrence at the site. Irreversibility – The degree to which the effects of a direct threat can be restored. Note that irreversibility refers to the "effects of the direct threat on the target" not the direct threat itself – you can think of it as the "recoverability" of the target from the effects of the threat. Very High: The effects of the direct threat are not reversible (e.g., wetlands converted to a shopping center). High: The effects of the direct threat are reversible, but not practically affordable (e.g., wetland converted to agriculture). Medium: The effects of the direct threat are reversible with a reasonable commitment of resources (e.g., ditching and draining of wetland). Low: The effects of the direct threat are easily reversible at relatively low cost (e.g., off‐road vehicles trespassing in wetland).

HCP Overview 32

A conceptual model or situation analysis shows us how targets and threats are connected and what factors contribute to threats and amplify them. The Situation Analysis helps us as well to identify opportunities to reduce threats or improve the status of targets.

February 2015

Once we identified all threats and contributing factors, strategies can be brainstormed to reduce the severity of threats.

February 2015

While Program Logic and Results Chains are terms from modern days management – the concept of linking interventions with on‐ground outcomes that lead to larger outcomes is intrinsic to Indigenous land management.

35

February 2015

February 2015

I mple me nt, Adapt , L e arn wo rksho p in De rby, WA, 2014 to sho w te ams ho w to ‘ ke e p the ir plan alive ’ HCP Overview 38

HCP Overview 39

February 2015

Version 3.0 was published in April 2013 and was a joint effort between many individuals and organizations.

Open Standards / Healthy Country Overview

February 2015

The Miradi software was developed as a tool for implementing the Open Standards. It was developed by CMP in partnership with Benetech, a software non-profit.

February 2015

CAP – TNC’s version of Open Standards – is being used by all of the major landscape‐scale projects across Australia (Gondwana Link; Habitat 141; Kosciusko to Coast) and as a result it has been specifically included in the Australian Government National Wildlife Corridor Strategy that will guide Australian Government investment in conservation projects.

According to a recently completed report for CSIRO “all the significant large‐scale conservation/restoration initiatives around Australia are actively using CAP” all with the support of CCNet coaches. Over 50 Million Hectare total in Australia!

Open Standards Overview 44

Healthy Country Plans now being developed across Australia Open Standards Workshop, Canberra 45

HCP Overview 46

Open Standards Resources Open Standards / Healthy Country Overview

HCP Overview 48