Tools for assessing and prioritizing species for intensive management

1
Tools for assessing and prioritizing species for
intensive management
2
The Amphibian Ark

• AArks mission
• Ensuring the global survival of amphibians,
  focusing on those that cannot currently be
  safeguarded in nature

3
The Amphibian Ark

• AArk utilizes short-term ex situ management to
  ensure long-term survival in nature of amphibians
  for which protection in the wild is not currently
  possible
• Our first emphasis is on programs within the
  range countries of the species, and coupling the
  ex situ work with efforts to secure species in
  situ
• AArk Taxon Officers assist amphibian experts on a
  national basis to assess local amphibian species
  for their specific conservation needs

4
Species Assessment

• Developing ex situ conservation programs
• Which species are our priorities
• Range state approval to work with species
• Ex situ management expertise and resources
• Collaborating with our partners
• Other conservation
  actions

5
Species Assessment

• Species selection and prioritization
• CBSG/WAZA held an Amphibian Ex Situ Conservation
  Planning workshop, Panama, 2006
• A taxon selection and prioritization working
  group developed a decision tree to select and
  prioritize which taxa are most in need of ex situ
  assistance
• The decision tree was expanded and developed into
  a standardized electronic data entry tool for
  prioritizing amphibians for ex situ programs

6
Species Assessment

• Species conservation needs
• The prioritization process was then further
  refined and developed into a conservation needs
  assessment process
• Additional buy-in from field biologists
• Coupling ex situ rescues with in situ and other
  actions
• Guide for development or revision of national
  conservation action plans

7
Species Assessment

• Overlap with IUCN Red List Assessments?
• Created to fill a void in the Red List Assessment
  process
• Lack of consistency and objectivity in
  Conservation Needs section of Red List assessment
  accounts
• Current process assesses threat status, but does
  not provide guidance
• Identifies broad categories of conservation
  action

8
Species Assessment

• Overlap with IUCN Red List Assessments?
• Conservation needs assessment complements Red
  List process
• Hope to eventually incorporate process and
  results with the Red List process
• Same field expertise required

9
Species Assessment

• The conservation needs assessment tool contains
  three main sections
• 1. Taxon assessment
• 2. Ex situ program authorization / Availability
  of animals
• 3. Ex situ program implementation

10
Species Assessment

• 1. Taxon assessment
• Assesses and prioritizes the conservation needs
  of all species
• Is a series of 15 questions and other existing
  data, with weighted scores
• The total score indicates how important the
  species is in relation to others

11
Species Assessment

• 1. Taxon assessment
• Includes information about extinction risk,
  phylogenetic significance, threat mitigation,
  habitat protection, cultural and socio-economic
  significance
• Usually answered in a workshop attended by a
  group of field biologists with expertise in the
  species being considered

12
Species Assessment
13
Species Assessment
14
Species Assessment
15
Species Assessment

• 2. Ex situ program authorization / Availability
  of animals
• Is there an existing conservation mandate that
  recommends an ex situ program?
• Is the proposed ex situ program supported by the
  range State?
• Are sufficient founder animals available to
  initiate an ex situ program?

16
Species Assessment

• The responses in Section 1 and 2 generate reports
  containing prioritized lists of species that are
  in need of various conservation actions

• Ark
• Rescue
• Supplementation
• In situ conservation
• In situ research
• Ex situ research
• Mass production in captivity
• Conservation education
• Cryopreservation

17
Species Assessment

• Ark
• A species that is extinct in the wild (locally or
  globally) and which would become completely
  extinct without ex situ management
• Rescue
• A species that is in imminent danger of
  extinction (locally or globally) and requires ex
  situ management, as part of an integrated
  program, to ensure its survival

18
Species Assessment

• Supplementation
• A species for which ex situ management will
  benefit the wild population through breeding for
  release as part of the recommended conservation
  action

19
Species Assessment

• In situ conservation
• A species for which mitigation of threats in the
  wild may still bring about its successful
  conservation
• In situ research
• A species that requires further in situ research
  to be carried out as part of the conservation
  action for the species. One or more critical
  pieces of information is not known at this time

20
Species Assessment

• Ex situ research
• A species undergoing specific applied research
  that directly contributes to the conservation of
  that species, or a related species, in the wild

21
Species Assessment

• Mass production in captivity
• A species threatened through wild collection
  (e.g. as a food resource), which could be, or is
  currently being bred in captivity to replace a
  demand for wild harvested specimens.

22
Species Assessment

• Conservation education
• A species that is specifically selected for
  management primarily in zoos and aquariums - to
  inspire and increase knowledge in visitors, in
  order to promote positive behavioural change.

23
Species Assessment

• Cryopreservation
• A species for which the long-term storage of
  sperm or cells to perpetuate their genetic
  variation is urgently recommended, due the
  serious threat of extinction of the species

24
Species Assessment

• Reports are generated by the data compiled during
  the workshop, and provide prioritized lists for
  further conservation action
• They are produced during the workshop and are
  provided to all workshop participants and
  published online
• Used as a guide to develop or revise national
  action plans

25
Species Assessment
26
Species Assessment

• 3. Ex situ program implementation
• Considers the practical feasibility of initiating
  and maintaining an ex situ program
• Includes a series of questions with yes/no
  answers about husbandry, number of founder
  animals, facilities, expertise, food supply etc.
• Identifies species for which ex situ programs are
  likely to be successful

27
Species Assessment

• 3. Ex situ program implementation
• Usually answered by institutions prior to
  establishing ex situ conservation programs
• Available as an online tool

28
Species Assessment
29
Raising awareness

• 2012 wall calendar

11 during CBSG meeting !!
30
Species Assessment

• The conservation needs assessment tool
• Provides prioritized lists of species for various
  conservation actions, with an indication of the
  appropriateness, and practicality of establishing
  ex situ programs
• Should be used as a guide to further develop
  local conservation activities
• Quantifies the appropriateness for a given
  species to be included in an ex situ conservation
  program

31
Species Assessment

• The conservation needs assessment tool
• Has already been used in 22 workshops in Europe,
  Africa, Asia, Australasia, North, Central and
  South America and South-East Asia
• Has been used to assess 2,407(38) of the worlds
  amphibian species

32
Species Assessment

• Future use of the process and tool
• Process is completely generic and can be used
  with any group of taxa
• The process has been modified slightly for use
  with assessing trees in Costa Rica
• Planning to use the tool with corals, bats,
  freshwater fish and felids

33
Species Assessment

• Problems with the conservation needs assessment
  tool
• Not all questions can be answered quantitatively
• Not all questions can be answered objectively
• Inconsistent interpretation
• Language misunderstandings
• Insufficient expertise/knowledge
• Disagreement between participants
• Information rapidly becomes out of date

34
Species Assessment

• Some answers
• Incomplete knowledge of species, a problem in
  itself, necessitates subjective and qualitative
  answers
• Priority lists are NOT intended to be globally
  comparable.
• Workshops are generally run by an experienced
  facilitator who is familiar with the process and
  competent in the language of the workshop

35
Species Assessment

• Some answers
• Workshops should aim to assemble a broad range of
  relevant expertise, of varied affiliation, and
  have access to the internet - but accept data
  deficiencies
• Agree to disagree. Qualitative and subjective
  perspectives guarantee disagreement - a good
  facilitator will resolve disputes
• Spreadsheets can be updated quickly and easily
  and reports republished

36
Species Assessment

• What the process does
• Provide a logical, repeatable, and most
  importantly, transparent process for guiding
  conservation activities within a country or
  region
• Help to develop new and strengthen existing
  partnerships between conservation organizations
• Demonstrate a measured and responsible approach
  to the amphibian extinction crisis by the ex situ
  community

37
Species Assessment

• What the process doesnt do
• Generate global priority lists
• Each set of regional/ national lists are
  generated independently and are therefore
  incomparable with others

38
Species Assessment

• What the process doesnt do
• Pretend to be perfect
• If answers are subjective or qualitative in
  nature they may also be inaccurate or change.
• Priority lists should therefore be viewed in the
  broad sense of identifying clear trends and
  obvious urgent cases

39
Species Assessment

• Integration with Red List assessments
• Aim to have the process incorporated into the Red
  List Assessment process
• The same expertise is required for both
  assessments
• Information could be consolidated within one
  central conservation database

40
Species Assessment

• Amphibian assessment results
• www.amphibianark.org/AssessmentResults.htm

41
Species Assessment
42
amphibian ark

www.amphibianark.org