Module 2. Site Conservation Planning for Protected Areas in Lao PDR - - PDF document

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257363146

Module 2. Site Conservation Planning for Protected Areas in Lao PDR (Background, Presentation and Exercises)

Book · January 2008

CITATIONS

2

READS

64

4 authors, including: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Nam Et Phou Louey National Protected Area Management View project Demand Reduction for Songbird View project Madhu Rao Wildlife Conservation Society

75 PUBLICATIONS 2,747 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Arlyne A.H. Johnson Foundations of Success

124 PUBLICATIONS 1,379 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Kelly Spence University of Tasmania

5 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Arlyne A.H. Johnson on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 STAGE 1 DEFINE PROJECT SITE AND THE GOAL 3

How to define the site 3 How to set a Conservation Goal for the site 4 How to select Conservation Targets 4 Using ‘Landscape Species’ as Conservation Targets 4

STAGE 2 DESIGN APPROACH AND RANK THREATS 7

How to develop a conceptual model for the site 7 Step 1 - Goal 7 Step 2 – Conservation Objectives 8 Step 3 – Direct and Indirect Threats 9 How to Rank and Map Threats 12 Threat Reduction Assessment 12 Mapping Threats 13

STAGE 3 IMPLEMENT ACTIONS AND MEASURE EFFECTIVENESS 15

a) Prioritizing and Implementing Conservation Activities 15 Choosing Where and How to Intervene 16 b) Developing monitoring frameworks 17

STAGE 4 REVIEW PROGRESS AND REVISE APPROACH 20 APPENDIX 1 22 APPENDIX 2 26 REFERENCES 30 1.

Site Conservation Planning for National Protected Areas in Lao PDR

Introduction

Globally, protected areas are considered to play a critical role in the conservation of biological diversity. The effectiveness of protected areas in conserving biological diversity depends on how they are managed and the extent to which planned interventions are successful in reducing threats to biodiversity in the protected area. This module focuses on providing protected area managers with planning tools to reduce threats in their protected

• areas. To illustrate these concepts the Elephant (Elephas maximus) and White-Cheeked

Crested Gibbon (Nomascus leucogenys) will be used as examples throughout the module. The process of site conservation planning and implementation comprises 4 distinct stages as depicted in Figure (1)i ii. Each of the 4 stages is described below as part of a conservation management cycle. This is a step-by-step process for planning and implementing includes the following (see Figure 4): Figure 1. The Wildlife Conservation Society’s interpretation of the conservation management cycle as developed by the Living Landscapes Program1.

Site-based project and/or umbrella role of species confirmed

1 Living Landscapes – is an innovative concept to look through the eyes of wildlife and an endeavor to

develop better ways for people and wildlife to share the earths living landscapes.

• 1. Define the Context

Set Conservation Goal Select Conservation Target Rank and Map Threats

• 2. Design Approach and

Measures of Success Build a Conceptual Model Set Desired state of Targets

• 4. Review Progress and

Revise Approach

• 3. Implement Actions

and Measure Effectiveness

Prioritize Interventions Build Monitoring

Landscape Species Selection

Spatial priorities are not well known

Spatial Modeling

2.

Stage 1 Define project site and the goal

How to define the site

The first step in the site conservation management cycle is very important as it defines the

• verall context for the project activities. At this step, you and your team select the site,

based on the results of global, regional and national conservation priority setting efforts (e.g., global and regional: species ranges, ecoregions2, hotspots3). In Lao PDR, NPAs are recognized as national priorities for biodiversity conservation. Therefore, NPAs and their surrounding area is a logical target for the conservation planning process. For example, the Nam Kading NPA and its immediate surrounding area within the Bolikhamxay Province are considered as a ‘site’ by the Integrated Ecosystem and Wildlife Management Project (IEWMP) being implemented by Bolikhamxay Province and the WCS (Figure 2). Figure 2. Map of Nam Kading NPA in Bolikhamxay Provinceiii

2 Ecoregions: a relatively large unit of land or water containing a geographically distinct assemblage of species,

natural communities, and environmental conditions. The ecosystems within an ecoregion have certain distinct characters in common

3 Hotspots: in general terms these are areas that have high levels of endemism (and hence diversity) but which

are also experiencing a high rate of loss of ecosystems. A terrestrial biodiversity hotspot is an area that has at least 0.5%, or 1,500 of the world’s ca. 300,000 species of green plants (Viridiplantae), and that has lost at least 70% of its primary vegetation iv.

3.

How to set a Conservation Goal for the site

A goal is a general summary of the desired state that a project is working to achieve. A good goal meets the following criteriaiv v:

• Visionary: The goal is inspirational in outlining the desired state toward which the project is

working

• Relatively General: Broadly defined to encompass all project activities
• Brief: Simple and succinct so that all project participants can remember it
• Measurable: Defined so that changes in the target condition upon which the goal is based

can be accurately assessed. Example: Conserve the wildlife and habitats in the Nam Kading National Protected Area

How to select Conservation Targets

These are specific statements defining the state or condition of species or habitat types that the project wants to influence through some intervention i. Conservation targets are representatives for all the flora, fauna and ecological functions within a landscape. They help focus interventions. Conservation of a target or a suite of targets should help achieve the conservation goal of the

• project. Though there is no absolute upper limit to how many conservation targets are chosen,

experience suggests that 3-5 is reasonable and that 10 may be too many. It is useful to remember that conservation targets are those attributes of the biodiversity that you are explicitly promising to conserve, and what others will use to assess whether or not the project, over the long-term, has been successful. Conservation targets can include species (for example Tiger, gibbon or hornbill),

• r ecosystem processes (such as Asian Redtail Catfish spawning to the tributaries of the Nam

Kading river). This module will only focus on landscape species as conservation targets acknowledging that conservation targets can also include habitats and other ecological processes.

Using ‘Landscape Species’ as Conservation Targets

At a given site, species referred to as landscape species can be used as conservation targets. Landscape species are defined as species that use large, diverse areas and have significant impacts on the structure and function of natural ecosystemsvi vii. Their habitat requirements in time and space make them particularly vulnerable to the land-use and resource harvesting practices of people. 4.

Animals with large home ranges4 (that require large spaces) and that require different types of habitat are often more likely to go locally extinct (Extirpation)5. Because they are large animals, they are vulnerable to habitat loss, tend to encounter humans and conflict with humans more

• ften, and are generally found at low densities. Moreover, these species often play important

ecological roles6. If they disappear from the landscape, it will have a large impact on the structure and function of the ecosystem7. They often are needed to disperse large seeds or consume fast reproducing species (such as rats). As a result, ‘landscape species’ are likely to serve as effective conservation umbrellas8. Thus, if we are successful at maintaining diverse and extensive habitat for landscape species, it is likely that other species in the same habitat, that rely on the same ecological processes and that are affected by the same human activities, will also survive. Landscape species have the following characteristics:

• a. Require a large area to meet ecological needs
• b. Rely on a variety of different habitats
• c. Are threatened by human resource-use practices (e.g, hunting, land use, etc)
• d. Play important ecological roles in the ecosystem
• e. Are culturally and/or economically significant, and
• f. In combination with other selected species, constitute a complementary conservation umbrella.

For more details on the criteria used to identify landscape species at a particular site, see the Appendix 1. The first step in selecting a group of landscape species to represent your site, it is to identify a number of candidate species from which the landscape species will be selectedviii vii. The initial candidate species should include all species that exhibit one or more of the criteria listed above to a significant degree. It is also important to include species occupying the full range of habitat and land-use types (e.g, montane evergreen forest, riverine forest, freshwater rivers, etc) in your

4 Home range: an area within which an animal tends to confine all or nearly all its activities for a long period of time ix 5 Extirpation: small-scale disappearance of a species x 6 Ecological role or ecological function role: Within ecosystems, seed dispersers, seed predators, ecological engineers

(e.g., beavers, elephants), nutrient monopolists (e.g., anadromous salmon, fig trees), predators, and pollinators often play significant roles in ecosystem structure, productivity and resilience xi

7 Ecosystem: a group of interacting organisms (usually called a community) and the physical environment they inhabit

at a given point in time x

8 Conservation umbrella: a suite of species that have different, complementary habitat requirements xi

5.

landscape, even though they may not be an example of all of the characteristics listed above. This is because the group of landscape species are selected based on how species complement one

• another. Together, the group of landscape species should represent all of the habitats and threats

at your site. The IEWMP team in the Nam Kading NPA in the Bolikhamxay Province used a list

• f 21 candidate species (Table 1) to select the final 7 landscape species. The landscape species

selection process has been detailed and reported for the Nam Kading NPA. Table 1: The list of candidate species for the Nam Kading Landscapeix x xi xii No Common Name Scientific Name 1 Great Hornbill Buceros bicornis 2 Wreathed Hornbill Rhyticeros undulatus 3 Lesser Fish Eagle Ichthyophaga humilis 4 River Lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii 5 Big Headed Turtle Platysternon megacephalum 6 Water Monitor Varanus salvator 7 Oriental Small-Clawed Otter Aonyx cinerea 8 Big Otter Lutra lutra 9 Bear Macaque Macaca arctoides 10 Fransois’s Langur Semnopithecus francoisi 11 White Cheeked Crested Gibbon Nomascus leucogenys 12 Bear bear sp 13 Clouded Leopard Neofelis nebulosa 14 Tiger Panthera tigris 15 Asian Elephant Elephas maximus 16 Sambar Cervus unicolor 17 Guar Bos gaurus 18 Wild Pig Sus scrofa 19 Serow Naemorhedus sumatraensis 20 Pakhe Bagarius bagarius 21 Pakheung Hemibagrus wycoides The final list of landscape species selected by the District Agriculture and Forestry Offices for the Nam Kading NPA include Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), tiger (Panthera tigris), southern serow 6.

(Naemorhedus sumatraensis), Eurasian wild pig (Sus scrofa), white-cheeked crested gibbon (Nomascus leucogenys), great hornbill (Buceros bicornis) and the “Pakheung” (Hemibagrus wyckoides) xii.

Stage 2 Design Approach and Rank Threats

How to develop a conceptual model for the site

An important tool that you will use for conservation planning at your site is the Conceptual

• Model. A conceptual model is viewed as the foundation of all project design, management, and

monitoring activities v. The process of developing a conceptual model with your NPA staff and stakeholders is useful in clarifying conservation goals, objectives, threats and the rationale underlying planned interventionsxiii i. One way of building a conceptual model for your site is to base it on 4 components: A goal, conservation target/objectives, direct and indirect threats and interventions (Figure 3) i. Figure 3: Components of a conceptual model Follow these steps for putting together a conceptual model for your site:

Step 1 - Goal

• Decide on the overall goal for the site. Remember that the goal should be visionary, long-

term and inspiring.

• Goals for NPA’s are linked to national development plans and sectoral strategies by

looking at the objectives set forth in these documents. Alleviating poverty and sustainable development of infrastructure and cities require good watersheds and healthy ecosystems provided by the NPA system. 7.

Goal: Is a brief, relatively general statement of intent (Example: Conserve wildlife and habitats in the Xe Pian NPA)

Step 2 – Conservation Objectives

• Define the conservation objectives(s) to be Specific (S), Measurable (M), Achievable (A),

Relevant (R) and Time-bound (T) (SMART objectives) v. Specific – Avoid very general statements (e.g. improve conservation in Laos) and describe a specific action, behavior, outcome or achievement (reduce biodiversity loss in Laos by 95% by 2015). Measurable – It is impossible to determine whether or not you’ve met your objectives unless you can measure them. Write objectives that have an indicator or benchmark from which change can be measured (e.g. ranger patrol frequency will increase by 100% from 2007 levels by 2009). Achievable – The goal or objective must be a realistic target that is feasible given the project resources and timeframe (e.g. provide conservation education training to teachers in the eight schools near a protected area by 2010) Relevant – The goal is meaningful to the mission of the implementing organization OR the

• bjective is meaningful to the overall goal, i.e. addresses a key threat or current constraint to

conservation (e.g. increase the number of volunteers trained and removing snares in tiger reserves) Time-bound – Outlines a specific time frame. It is important to provide a timeframe indicating when the goal or objective will be achieved (e.g. Decrease deforestation by 50% by 2010). Conservation objectives are specific statements defining the state or condition of conservation targets such as species, or ecological processes (Example: By 2012, the White Cheeked Gibbon population in Nam Kading NPA core zone will increase by 10%). 8.

Step 3 – Direct and Indirect Threats

A common objective of park management plans is to reduce the threats to the conservation

• targets. Hence, the next step is to list all the direct and indirect factors that are threats to the

conservation target(s) identified above. Direct threats are human activities such as hunting, fishing, logging, farming, road building and house construction that physically result in undesirable changes animal abundance, age or size class distributions9, movement patterns10, species richness11 and/or the quality and extent of their habitat. There are usually 4 categories of direct threats to biodiversity: 1) habitat loss (Cutting of Evergreen Forest), 2) species depletion (Over harvesting of Pangolins), 3) pollution (dumping industrial waste into the Mekong River) and, 4) invasion of non-native species. (Golden Apple snail introduction) Indirect threats are factors underlying direct threats (meaning the reasons why the direct threats are happening). There are usually 3 categories of indirect threats: 1) Managers: Lack of resources or capacity to enforce regulations, monitor impacts, or communicate rules to users (Lack of staff to do enforcement) 2) Users: lack of awareness of how their activities can threaten biodiversity and result in unsustainable use of natural resources, lack of interest in conservation, lack of alternatives to a damaging activity (Lack of alternative sources of income leads people to break laws and engage in illegal wildlife trade and illegal logging) 3) Policy makers: inadequate laws, policy or support for their enforcement (Lack of enforcement of the Wildlife Law)

• Arrange the threats in a way that shows how each threat relates to other threats that

negatively affect the conservation target.

9 Age or size class distribution: A populations distribution of age classes and size are important to the reproductive

health of a population

10 Movement patterns: The dispersal of a species 11 Species richness: the number of species in a region, site, or sample xxvii

9.

10. Figure 4 shows a conceptual model developed for one of the conservation targets (Asian Elephant) at the Nam Kading NPA

11. Figure 4. Conceptual model for Asian Elephant in the Nam Kading NPAxiv

How to Rank and Map Threats

Threat Reduction Assessmentxv

The threat reduction assessment (TRA) approach xv to measure project success tries to identify threats not only in order to design projects, but to monitor them as well. In effect, instead of merely monitoring the target condition, the TRA approach monitors the threats themselves as a proxy measurement of conservation success. Assessment of the progress in reducing threats provides a framework for measuring conservation success. Threats are prioritized on the basis of three criteria: area, intensity, and urgency. Area refers to the percentage of the habitat(s) in the site that the threat will affect: will it affect all of the habitat(s) at the site or just a small part? Intensity refers to 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 refers to the immediacy of the threat: will the threat

• ccur tomorrow or in 25 years? An index known as a “threat reduction index” is used to

implement the TRA approach. The index is designed to identify threats, rank them according to their relative importance, assess progress in meeting each of them, and then pool the information to obtain an estimation of actual threat reduction so that meaningful comparisons can be made across different projects. The TRA method has been used to monitor threats in the Crater Mountain Wildlife Management Area (CMWMA) in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, for a butterfly and honey enterprise project in Sulawesi, Indonesia and for a community-based logging project in the Masoala Peninsula, Madagascarxvi xvii. Salafsky and Margoluis (1999) provide a comparison of the TRA method and biological approaches to measuring project success using various theoretical and practical criteria. Advantages of using the TRA approach include greater sensitivity to temporal and spatial changes, ease and cost of data collection, analytical benefits of direct comparisons between different types of projects and ease in interpreting data. Furthermore, the TRA is viewed as a cost-effective tool for determining whether a given project is achieving its conservation goals or for comparing projects in different ecological and socioeconomic contexts. 12.

Disadvantages of using the TRA approach are related to the fact that it is not a completely direct, precise, unbiased and objective measurement of the state of the biodiversity at a project site. Still, the TRA method has the potential to overcome many of the constraints in implementing biological and impact monitoring methods as described above xv.

Mapping Threats

This step involves the mapping of all prioritized threats on base maps of the protected area to show where human activities are occurring at the site. The threats are mapped by drawing features on the map for every discrete occurrence of human activity (e.g. hunting, human- elephant conflict, logging, etc.) ii. The red and orange areas shown in Figure 5b show potential sites of human elephant conflict in areas where agricultural fields are close to elephant habitat. Areas marked with yellow polygons show areas where the District Agriculture and Forestry Office (DAFO) staff from Bolikhamxay Province reported problems of elephant crop raiding and poaching

• f elephants in 2006. One yellow polygon that falls within a low impact area (light blue)

indicated a future possibility of conflict as a land for new agricultural fields is being cleared. 13.

Figure 5a. Map showing boundaries of protected areas (brown polygons) and forest habitat (green shading) in central Laos by IEWMPxviii. Figure 5b. Model showing the potential threat of human-elephant conflict (HEC) around protected areas (green boundaries) in central Laos. The model shows potential severe HEC areas in red and moderate areas of HEC in orange. Blue indicates little or no HEC at the present time xix xviii 14.

Stage 3 Implement actions and measure effectiveness

Protected area managers need to consider:

• a. How to prioritize conservation activities (also called, “interventions”)
• b. How to measure if they are successful by developing monitoring frameworks.
• Managers need to keep in mind that the interventions and monitoring frameworks show

that the activities meet the larger goals of the nation.

a) Prioritizing and Implementing Conservation Activities

At this stage in the planning proccess, you will identify interventions to address the priority threats listed. Four broad types of interventions are frequently identified i: (i) Enforcement (this including forest patrols, market patrols, road check points, identifying and demarcating protected area boundaries and core zones, etc) (ii) Education and awareness raising (disseminating NPA regulations, information about location and purpose of the protected area, the status and importance of the animals, etc.) (iii) Incentives (Including direct payments to people to protect an animal, alternative income derived from tourism or wildlife research in the NPA, etc.) (iv) Modification of livelihood practices (growing livestock forages near villages, training farmers to protect crops from elephants, relocating fields away from pig and elephant habitat, etc.) Figure 6 is an excerpt from the elephant conceptual model for Nam Kading and shows the interventions for this species xiv. 15.

Figure 6: An excerpt of the interventions for the conceptual model for the elephant.

Choosing Where and How to Intervene

Given that staff and money are always limited, scarce resources need to be allocated to reducing the highest priority threats first. Starting with the highest ranked direct threat, we use the conceptual model to review what indirect factors are believed to be causing this direct threat and having an adverse impact on the conservation objective. Understanding how the indirect threats, either alone or together, influence the factor that directly impacts biodiversity is critical because it helps us to determine where we should, or can, intervene to have the greatest success in reducing threats to wildlife and their habitat. If an indirect threat like ‘weak capacity’ links to more than one direct threat, then we may need to provide more detail and identify separate indirect threats linked to a single direct threat. For example, illustrated in Figure 8, if we identified cultural preference as an indirect threat that links to hunting [gibbons] for both medicine and food, we could specify cultural preference as:

• 1. preference for medicine and,

16.

• 2. preference for wildlife as food.

This way, if we decide to intervene to alter cultural preference, we make clear which preference we hope to change. Margoluis and Salafsky 1998 suggest that we describe what we plan to do to reduce each high-priority threat, and argue that the intervention should be: impact oriented (resulting in a desired change in the threat), measurable, time limited (achievable within a specific period of time), and practical given available staff and financial resources. Once we have defined how we intend to address each priority threat, we can determine how many threats we can afford to address given available resources. After the intervention is decided, each team should make a detailed workplan, with budget and time lines to do the work. Sometimes team members will get so involved in implementation that they forget why they are doing the activity. Team members need to regularly review the conceptual model to be reminded why they are doing the activity.

b) Developing monitoring frameworks

Once interventions have been identified to help reduce key threats, we need to measure the effectiveness of our interventions, and using this information to guide our decisions. To do this, we must create a monitoring design and develop a formal monitoring framework12. Monitoring is an essential component of good conservation management because: xx.

• Monitoring tracks progress over time towards our conservation target and objective.
• Monitoring allows us to assess whether or not threats are decreasing, and/or wildlife

populations are increasing or remaining stable. Through monitoring we can test our assumptions as to whether our interventions are actually leading to what we want to achieving our conservation target and objectivexxi xxii.

• Ideally we should monitor at 3 different levels: i) the results of our interventions, ii)

reduction of threats and iii) the status of the conservation targets

• We would monitor our interventions to make sure that they are being

implemented as we planned (e.g. Are trained guards getting out on patrol?).

• Since our interventions are chosen to reduce levels of threat to wildlife and

their habitat, we monitor our success in reducing threats to assess whether or

12 Monitoring framework: a framework that explicitly defines the targets our conservation progress will be

measured, the trend data that we will use to measure our progress over time, the information gathering activities that we need to put in place to obtain the monitoring information, and the individual indicators we are going to use to quantify change over time xxii.

17.

18. not our interventions were worthwhile (e.g., Is there a reduction in the number

• f arms & cartridge shells in the area being patrolled?).
• Lastly, we look at the status of the wildlife species or habitat that form our

conservation targets to see whether it improves when our interventions are implemented successfully, and threats are reduced (e.g., Are gibbon populations doing better due to the reduction of hunting with firearms?) (Strindberg et al. 2007).

• It is critical to ensure that monitoring results are used to modify relevant aspects of the

conceptual model. Monitoring that does not lead to an assessment of management effectiveness, and an improvement in management practices has little conservation value.

19. Table 2: Monitoring Framework for the Nam Kading NPA

Component of Conceptual Model Landscape Species Objective Method Indicator Who Comments Conservation Target Tiger To raise the population of Tiger by 20%

• ver 5 years

Camera trapping Patch occupancy – area used 2 Camera trap teams Density; # of individual/km2; in the future after populations increase Conservation Target Southern Serow To raise the population of the Southern Serow by 50% over five years Camera trapping Patch occupancy – area used 2 Camera trap teams Conservation Target Eurasian Wild Pig To raise the population of the Eurasian Wild Pig by 100% over five years Camera trapping Patch occupancy – area used 2 Camera trap teams Conservation Target White-cheeked Crested Gibbon To raise the population of the White- cheeked Crested Gibbon by 10% over five years Dry Season forest transects Patch occupancy – area used 4 Forest transect teams Density; # of individual/km2; in the future after populations increase Conservation Target Great Hornbill To raise the population of the Great Hornbill by 35% over five years Dry Season forest transects Patch occupancy – area used 4 Forest transect teams Density; # of individual/km2; in the future after populations increase Conservation Target Asian Elephant To have no decline in the population of Asian Elephant over five years Fecal DNA capture- recapture Density: #

• f

individuals/km2 To be determined To be initiated in 2009

Stage 4 Review Progress and Revise Approach

This stage involves conservation audits, generation of reports, annual meetings etc. Based on the monitoring results from the previous stage, we can revise assumptions, adapt the interventions and refine the conceptual model and monitoring framework. To illustrate how we might do this, let’s look again at the conceptual model for the Asian elephant in the Nam Kading NPA (Figure 4). Let’s think about how the model might change if our monitoring of land use showed us that a new hydropower project in the NPA would create a reservoir that would inundate mineral licks that are essential for the elephant

• nutrition13. Now, to still reach our objective of maintaining the elephant population in the

NPA (see Figure 4), we would need to mitigate the loss of the naturally-occurring mineral licks by creating artificial mineral licks to assure that the elephants receive the nutrition that they require to survive. To show this adaptation in our conceptual model, we would add the following changes to our conceptual model (Figure 7) Figure 7. Reviewed conceptual model with addition to reflect the new developments over time.

Habitat Loss Inundation of mineral licks Hydropower project Electricity production Build artificial mineral licks

All team leaders on the NPA staff should be aware of the conceptual model and adaptive management cycle. Not every member of the team has to know this. Government line agencies and project sponsors should be kept informed of the evolution of project

• interventions. This process is very effective in showing this to the sponsors.

In Conclusion: The methodology used in this module will help protected area manager’s develop a management strategy for the areas under their responsibility. To effectively conserve

13 Elephants eat soil at mineral licks to obtain nutrients (such as sodium and potassium) that are essential

for elephant nutrition.

20.

biodiversity it is critical that the complex relationships between wildlife and people are taken into consideration. The outlined method of defining a site and setting goals, selecting conservation targets, developing a conceptual model (hence identifying threats and ranking threats), setting implementation activities and developing a method of monitoring are all important steps that will lead to effective conservation management. 21.

Appendix 1

Landscape Species Criteria The following 5 criteria are used to identify the landscape species at a particular sitexxiii (1) Area. Four factors are used to score candidate species’ area requirements: the home range size of individuals, their dispersal distances, the proportion of the target landscape

• ccupied by the species, and whether the area requirements for an ecologically functional

population of the species necessitate connectivity between habitat patches and/or management units in the target landscape. Species with large home ranges are more vulnerable to local extinction. By protecting areas large enough for the most widely ranging species, less area-demanding species will also be protected. Dispersal distances are considered because the movement of individuals can effectively link the different parts of landscapes, potentially requiring management at larger scales. The next consideration is the proportion of the target landscape occupied by the species. Species that could occupy 95%

• f a wild landscape will have a far greater umbrella function than a species occupying just

5%. (2) Heterogeneity Many species of wildlife need a variety of habitat or vegetation types for breeding, foraging, dispersal, or survival during unfavorable years. Homogeneous areas, no matter how large, may not meet these species’ requirements. Planning for these species forces us to evaluate the composition of habitat types within the landscape so that all the resources they require are included and effectively protected. Furthermore, these different habitat types must also be effectively connected to allow individuals to move between them. In other words, a particular landscape configuration may be necessary for the species. Selecting landscape species with heterogeneous habitat requirements will help identify the composition and configuration of habitat types necessary for successful conservation of diverse landscapes. Another reason to select species using heterogeneous areas is that fewer species will be required to “cover” a wild area compared to a larger number of habitat

• specialists. Fewer focal species means more efficient conservation.

22.

Heterogeneity is also considered in the context of land use. Wildlife do not recognize legal or jurisdictional boundaries. In a single day an individual elephant may walk from a forest reserve into a national park, across an international boundary, and up to a village farm, all within a single habitat type. Management decisions in each of these areas will affect the conservation of elephants in others. This is significant because connectivity between management or political units may be just as significant as the connections between habitat types. (3) Vulnerability The number and severity of threats that affect species is another criterion used to select landscape species. Threats can be characterized according to their severity, urgency, probability of occurrence, and the area they affect. For each candidate species the land-uses they encounter are listed and each is scored according to its effect on the landscape species (severity), the timescale over which it will take place (urgency), the time necessary to recover from the threat (recovery time), its likelihood (probability of occurrence), and the portion of the landscape species’ local distribution affected (area). These measures are then combined into a single “vulnerability index” for each candidate species. (4) Socio-economic significance The final criterion for selecting landscape species is their socio-economic significance. Because they range widely and encounter a variety of habitat and land-use types, landscape species are particularly likely to come into contact with people and their land-uses. Wildlife may clash with people because they raid crops, prey on livestock, transmit diseases to domestic animals and people, or compete for resources. Wildlife may also have important positive benefits, such as serving as a potent cultural icon or totem, forming a significant portion of people’s diets, as white-lipped peccaries do for many Amazonian people, or providing opportunities for income generation through ecotourism. To provide a proxy for socio-economic significance, we tabulate the number of contexts, both positive and negative, in which each candidate landscape species is involved. 23.

(5) Ecological functionality Some species have particularly strong effects on the structure and function of natural

• ecosystems. For example, tapir and elephants disperse seeds and thin the forest understory,

and top predators can control the abundance and composition of prey communities. Given these strong effects on other species, maintaining healthy populations of these ecologically pivotal species will help conserve healthy communities and ecosystems. The ecological significance of candidate landscape species is quantified by the number of ecological functions they are involved in and their significance in each. Building a Complementary Suite of Landscape Species Once all candidate landscape species are scored for each of the five criteria, each value is scaled to a range of 0–1 and five normalized scores are combined into a single aggregate

• index. The next task is to select the suite of landscape species for the site. To do this, the

species with the highest aggregate score is selected as the first landscape species. Subsequent species are chosen one at a time from the next five highest-priority candidate species. At each step the species identified as the most complementary to the existing suite is added. Complementarity is defined by minimum spatial overlap in habitat requirements and distinctiveness in threats encountered. Uniqueness in trophic position or taxonomy can be considered for species with similar spatial distributions. How many Landscape Species? Species are added to the suite until the needs of the most complementary candidate species (i.e., the next species to be added) have already been met by the current suite of landscape

• species. Thus the suite is effectively “closed” when the requirements of the remaining

candidate species are captured under the umbrella of those already included in the suite of chosen landscape species. Depending on the diversity of habitats and species at a particular site, the suite can consist of 3 to 6 species. Data Requirements Ideally, all of the data considered in the selection process would be rigorously collected at the site being considered. In reality, information about species in most landscapes is

• incomplete. Hence, it is essential to record the degree of reliability of information used in the

selection process. To keep track of this uncertainty, score all quantitative data according to 24.

its statistical and methodological rigor and its applicability to the target site. Acknowledging the limits of knowledge and understanding is important as it provides an index for setting priorities for research. A relatively high “uncertainty rating” for a wildlife species would not eliminate its selection as a landscape species, but would suggest that additional research is required to validate the selection and the assumptions underlying the selection. Resources for Selecting Landscape Species The Living Landscapes Program within the Wildlife Conservation Society has produced a software program to automate the landscape species selection process vii. The Program has also produced a software program to automate the selection process, and this software is available

• nline
• n

the Living Landscapes Program website (http://www.WCSLivingLandscapes.org) or upon request (LLP@wcs.org). 25.

Appendix 2

Building conceptual models for landscape species and identifying management interventions to reduce threats: An example from the Nam Kading NPA, Bolikhamxay Province xiv Landscape Species: White-cheeked crested gibbon (Nomascus leucogenys)

• A review of the gibbon conservation landscape (Fig.9) showed that most of the NPA

still provides high quality evergreen forest habitat for gibbon but that the majority of the area is threatened by hunting (red and orange areas overlaid with black circles that indicate high levels of hunting).

• Habitat loss as a result of logging is also a threat along the western boundary of the
• NPA. The landscape shows that only the very core of the NPA now provides high

quality habitat where the level of threat is low (green area).

• A review of gibbon biology (gibbon reproduction, dispersal, and

population viability). (i) In general, gibbons are known to live in pairs and have one

• ffspring approximately every two yearsxxiv. The juvenile stays with the parents for

approximately eight years before it must disperse to find a new territory to survive. (ii) Gibbons are unlikely to cross forest gaps that are greater than 10-20m and are unable to cross rivers.

• Based on the literature, it was estimated that the evergreen forest in Nam Kading

could possibly contain three family groups/ km2 with an average group size of four individualsxxv xxiv. For long-term population viability, references indicated that 125 groups is a minimum and the ideal populations size would be at least 1250 groupsxxvi.

• To achieve the latter would require 416km2 of ideal habitat. Based on the

conservation landscape, it was estimated that up to 80-90% of the NKD (total area

• f 1690km2) may be suitable for gibbons. Theoretically, it would be possible to

harbor up to 4500 groups, or around 18,000 individuals, in the NPA in the absence

• f all threats.

26.

Figure 8: Conceptual model for White Cheeked Crested Gibbon (Nomascus leucogenys) in the Nam Kading NPA Figure 9: Gibbon Conservation Landscape xix 27.

Identifying Conservation objectives Following the review of the conservation landscape and gibbon biology, and a discussion of potential action needed to expand gibbon populations, the following objective was identified: “A 10% increase in population of white-cheeked crested gibbons will be achieved by 2010 within the NKD NPA.” Define the Threats and Interventions Hunting and Habitat Loss were identified as the principle direct threats to gibbons in the NKD NPA (Fig 8). Hunting Who and How. Two main groups are engaged in hunting for gibbons. These include poor villagers around the NPA that use homemade guns and village militia that use automatic

• guns. Gibbons are eaten for food and the bones are sold to Vietnam for making medicine.

Traders come to the villages to buy scrap metal and ask at the same time if there is any gibbon bone to buy. The current price is 1kg bone/50,000 Kip (~$US5). Gibbons were previously for trade as pets and now people will trade baby gibbons opportunistically. Recommended interventions to control hunting inclue:1)education & awareness-raising and 2) law enforcement. For each intervention, they identified that the following priority of activities be implemented (Fig 8):

• 1. Education & awareness-raising (labeled as ‘Extension’ in the conceptual model)
• Go to the Province first and then the district to inform about the problem.
• Work with small groups of powerful leaders at the Province and at the district level

to ensure awareness of the laws protecting gibbons.

• Work with leaders to address illegal selling of firearms.
• Conduct awareness training for hunters on laws protecting gibbons.
• Provide CITES training for Customs and officials
• Mark the boundaries of the NPA.

28.

• 2. Enforcement

Implement enforcement of laws protected gibbons by:

• Regularly confiscating homemade guns from villages in and around the NPA.
• Conducting regular and systematic forest patrols within NKD to prevent hunting
• Establishing and manning checkpoints on major routes

Habitat Loss District officers identified two major sources of habitat loss in the NPA that would effect

• gibbons. These were; 1) Slash and burn agriculture and 2) Forest fires. Similar to the threat
• f Hunting identified above, interventions were identified

29.

References Strindberg, S., K. Didier, and the Living Landscapes Program. (2006b). A quick reference guide to the Landscape Species Selection Software, version 2.1. Technical Manual 5, Wildlife Conservation Society, Living Landscapes Program, Bronx, NY. http://wcslivinglandscapes.com/media/file/LLP_Manual5_SpeciesSelectionSoftware_EN.p df Biodiversity Conservation Network. 1997a. Biodiversity Conservation Network. 1997b. Salafsky, N., R. Margoluis, and K.H. Redford. 2000. Adaptive Management: A tool for Conservation Practitioners. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C. Salafsky, N., R. Margoluis, K.H. Redford, and J.G. Robinson. 2002. Improving the practice

• f conservation: A conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation
• science. Conservation Biology 16: 1469-1479.

From Exercises National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) with assistance from the Lao- Swedish Upland Agriculture and Forestry Research Program. 2004. A workshop on poverty reduction and shifting cultivation stabilization in the uplands of Lao PDR: Technologies, approaches and methods for improving upland livelihoods. Workshop Information Booklet. January 27-30, 2004. WCS File # 18.

i Wilkie, D. and the Living Landscapes Program. (2004b). Creating Conceptual Models - a

tool for thinking strategically. Technical Manual 2, Wildlife Conservation Society, Living Landscapes Program, Bronx,NY. http://wcslivinglandscapes.com/media/file/LLP_Manual2_ConceptualModels_EN.pdf

ii Wilkie et al. 2004a iii Rasphone, A. (2007). Map of Nam Kading. Wildlife Conservation Society, Lao Program iv Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A. B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000.

Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853-858.

iv v Margolius, R. and Salafsky, N. (1998). Measures of success: designing, managing and

monitoring conservation and development projects. Washington, D.C: Island Press. 30.

vi Sanderson, E. W., Redford, K. H., Vedder, A., Coppolillo, P. B. and Ward, S. E. (2002). A

conceptual model for conservation planning based on landscape species requirements. Landscape and Urban Planning 58: 41-56.

vii Strindberg, S. 2004. Landscape Species Selection v2. Living Landscapes Program.

International Conservation Programs, Wildlife Conservation Society, USA.

viii Coppolillo, P., Gomez, H., Maisels, F. and Wallace, R. (2004). Selection criteria for suites

• f landscape species as a basis for site-based conservation. Biological Conservation 115(3):

419-430.

ix Keeton, W. T. (1972). Biological Science (second edition). New York. x Malcolm, L. and Hunter, Jr. (2002). Fundamentals of conservation Biology (second

edition). Blackwell Science

xi (WCS, 2002)-bulletin 3_Living Landscape ix x xi xii Strindberg, S. (2006). Landscape Species Selection for the Nam Kading Landscape, Lao

P.D.R., 34. Vientiane: Wildlife Conservation Society.

xiii Wilkie, D. and the Living Landscapes Program. (2002a). Using conceptual models to set

conservation priorities. Bulletin 5, Wildlife Conservation Society, Living Landscapes Program, Bronx, NY. http://wcslivinglandscapes.com/media/file/LLP_Bulletin5_ConceptualModels_EN.pdf

xiv Johnson, A., S. Vannalath, C. Hallam and P. Sisavath. (2006). Using conservation

landscapes to build conceptual models for the Nam Kading National Protected Area Landscapes - Based on results from a workshop help at That Van Fong research center, Nam Ka Ding Protected Area. Bolikhamxay, WCS and IEWMP: 1-43.

xv Salafsky, N. and R. Margoluis. 1999. Threat reduction assessment: A practical and

costeffective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects. Conservation Biology 13: 1830-841.

xvi Biodiversity Conservation Network. 1996. Annual report: stories from the field and

lessons learned. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington DC.

xvii Kremen, C., K. Lance, and I. Raymond. 1998. Interdisciplinary tools for monitoring

conservation impacts in Madagascar. Conservation Biology 12: 549-563.

xviii Rasphone et al, 2007 xix Bryja, G. (2006). Building Biological and Human Landscapes for Central Lao

P.D.R. (specifically for the Nam Kading region). 27. New York: Wildlife 31.

Conservation Society.

xx Margoluis, R. and N. Salafsky. 2001. Is Our Project Succeeding? A Guide to the Threat

Reduction Assessment for Conservation. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington DC.

xxi Kremen, C., A. M. Merenlender, and D. D. Murphy. 1994. Ecological monitoring: a vital

need for integrated conservation and development programs in the tropics. Conservation Biology 8:1-10.

xxii Wilkie, D. and the Living Landscapes Program. (2002b). Monitoring conservation project

• effectiveness. Bulletin 6, Wildlife Conservation Society, Living Landscapes Program, Bronx,

NY. http://wcslivinglandscapes.com/media/file/LLP_Bulletin6_Monitoring_EN.pdf

xxiii Strindberg 2004, LLP Bulletin 4 2002 xxiv Leighton, D. R. (1987). Gibbons: territoriality and monogamy. In Primate Societies: 135-

• 145. Smuts, B. B., Cheney, D. L., Seyfarth, R. M., Wrangham, R. W. and Struhsaker, T. T.

(Eds.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

xxv Geissmann, T., Dang, N. X., Lormee, N. and Momberg, F. (2000). Vietnam primate

conservation status review 2000 - part 1: gibbons. Hanoi, Vietnam: Fauna & Flora International, Indochina Programe.

xxvi Bleisch, W. and Jiang, X. L. (2000). Action plan for conservation of gibbons of

the Wuliang mountains. Kunming, China: Sino-Dutch Forest Conservation and Community Development Project.

xxvii Groom, M. J., Meffe, G. K., Carroll, C. R. and Contributors (2006). Principles of

Conservation Biology (third edition). Sinauer Associates, Inc. USA. 32.

View publication stats View publication stats