"Threat management actions to protect biodiversity and restore ecosystem function are rarely coupled with costed and prioritized sets of management actions for use in decision-making." Carwardine et al. (2012)
"Assigning a cultural, economic, or ecological value to a species is a notoriously difficult task." Wilson et al. (2011)
Towards Quantitative Assessments and Forecasting of Conservation Initiatives
As the quote above suggests, "threat management" entities are in need of revision; however, "community-based conservation" ["community-based management"] entities have as goals neither repair of biogeochemical insults, conservation of total biodiversity, nor restoration of ecosystems, concentrating, instead, on the viability of single non-human taxonomic units as well as a limited number of human groups and their interests. "Community-based conservation [management]" is defined in one article as programs whereby "rural people [determine] an integral part of a wildlife conservation policy. The key elements of such programs are that local [and/or indigenous] communities participate in resource planning and management and that they gain economically from wildlife utilization." (Hackel 1999). Inherent in the latter perspective is that landscapes should be "locally-relevant and multifunctional", that efforts to promote biodiversity be viewed as "conservation and social-ecological systems", and that human environments are viewed as distinct from, not integral components of, biogeochemical systems, implying a disconnect between "ecological and social [sic] values".
Humans And Their Organizations Are Biotic Factors
The latter and related papers advance humans as a fundamental part of the "solution" to biodiversity conservation as problem-solvers and as knowledgeable stakeholders in enterprises devoted to preserving biodiversity [see second link below]. Although a thorough critique of "community-based conservation" or "community-based management" is beyond the scope of this brief blogpost, I suggest here that indigenous and local communities inhabiting and/or utilizing resources should be incorporated as factors in parameters of formulae critical to ecosystem management and the preservation of healthy biogeochemical processes, evaluated in quantitative models in the same manner as are other critical entities, variables, units, and factors, and weighted for relevance and importance to expert decision-makers, ecologists and conservation biologists (see Carwardine et al. 2012). Even where human interests are ultimately weighted in addition to or separate from other taxa, a prioritization approach...including assessment of differential benefits and costs to biogeochemical processes of all species in a biome as well as their functions and effects...has predictive utility and should be undertaken before limited funds are invested in any conservation proposal.
Measuring, Weighting, And Modeling Human Factors
An ethical and philosophical perspective justifying such treatment of human variables (cultural, behavioral, "motivational", belief, etc.) would be a utilitarian one whereby the interests of human groups inhabiting and/or utilizing resources deemed critical to biodiversity and ecosystem functions are evaluated relative to what is best for the biogeochemistry of biomes and ecosystems as a whole (i.e., what is best for the "common good"). Humans are an integral, and, often, a deleterious, component of ecosystems, and the functions and effects of human activities demand to be assessed as would any other component of ecosystem health over short and long time-spans. Quantitative models should weight human factors, and the differential effects and costs of mitigating those factors, as would be factors associated with any other species. The papers cited below [*] are a few of many publications outlining programs and methods of measuring, prioritizing, and solving problems related to global [conservation] management of biodiversity and ecosystem function. Just as "triage" [**] will be needed in decision-making regarding which plants and non-human animals to preserve, the same procedures are required when making decisions regarding the weighted effects of human groups, including, their opinions, beliefs, attitudes, values, traditions, locations, etc. The first article linked below provides one example of a conflict between culture and conservation policy, representing a case in which "triage" [**] was not employed for problem-solving by a managing agency. Carwardine et al. (2012; also see Wilson et al. 2011) provide a quantitative model capable of incorporating human factors.
Limitations of Community-Based Conservation or Community-Based Management (C-B C/M)
Although C-B C/M organizations generally work with lower budgets than "top-down", internationally-focused organizations, the per unit costs of the former programs are probably higher because of inefficiency brought about, in part, by the lack of transparent, rational planning, and frequently opportunistic choices of sites selected because communities are initially receptive to influence or have already incorporated environmental ethics into their culture (e.g., Mayan traditions diffused to Creoles in Belize: see second link below as well as 3rd link below). Furthermore, the emphasis in C-B C/M projects is often directed, primarily, to modifications of behaviors, attitudes, and motivations, conventional concerns of the "social sciences". Prioritization, forecasting, and quantification is rarely, if ever, focused on preservation of landscapes prioritized as per total biodiversity and on preservation and/or mitigation of landscapes and biogeochemical processes, including, ecosystem functions. Furthermore, quantitative assessments, including forecasting, of differential [short-, mid-, and long-term] costs and benefits are rarely, if ever, undertaken. Related to the latter concerns, C-B C/M is generally focused upon increasing population size of single or a few animal populations, a strategy that may exacerbate tendencies for "trophic cascades" and other imbalances in community ecological patterns and effects in areas where predators have been extirpated (see Teichman et al. 2013) [see J Ecol blogpost ***].
In addition, it has been shown that crisis management of endangered species may be very costly or wasteful of resources and that the latter strategy fails to achieve "preventive conservation" (see Wilson 2011). Many other traits are associated with C-B C/M programs that are inconsistent with the formulations and advice included in the cited and related publications (e.g., short duration of projects; difficulty of behavioral-modification, especially without long-term financial incentives; inevitable conflicts of interest and power asymmetries within communities; selection of resources without conservation [biodiversity or ecosystem of biogeochemical] value; idealistic and/or aesthetic rather than pragmatic motivation and programming; concentration on "charismatic" and/or "flagship" taxa; non-expert administration and implementation; creation of conditions requiring investment of unavailable levels of funding; raising expectations of community members; ad hoc decision-making, etc.). In short, a review of C-B C/M programs leads to the conclusion that they are not cost-effective responses to or mitigators of the critical status of conservation and biogeochemical warning signs within and between habitats and biomes, including challenges related to the long-term maintenance of biodiversity and healthy ecosystem functions (see second link below). Not only is the scale of C-B C/M usually too small, but the knowledge base is primarily based on a "social science" model inadequate to the successful implementation of databases and models derived from theoretical and empirical ecological research, especially, Community Ecology and Ecosystem Ecology.
6 Neglected Prioritizations Advanced By Game et al. (2013)
It seems likely that C-B C/M organizations fail to address the 6 categories of neglected prioritizations discussed by Game et al. (2013): "not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill-defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure". Of prime importance, C-B C/M is not engaged with the projects of biodiversity-conservation and restoration of ecosystems, landscapes, and biogeochemical injuries, running the risk of doing more harm than good to total biodiversity in a region and to ecosystem functions (see "nested" design below & last link to blogpost on Triage Conservation). See Carwardine et al. (2012; also Wilson et al. 2011) for a quantitative model that can incorporate factors of concern to C-B/M environmentalists and activists as a first approximation for prioritization of these variables. Finally, I wish to suggest for further discussion that conservation is not, fundamentally, about conservation of animals and/or plants, per se, but about conservation of the integrity of the global ecosystem [global biogeochemistry].
Carwardine J, et al. (2012) Prioritizing threat management for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Lett doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00228.x*
Ceballos G, et al. (2005) Global mammal conservation: what must we manage? Science 309: 603-607*
Chades I, et al. (2011) General rules for managing and surveying networks of pests, diseases, and endangered species. PNAS 108: 8323-8328*
Fuller RA, et al. (2010) Replacing underperforming protected areas achieves better conservation outcomes. Nature doi:10.1038/nature09180*
Game ET, et al. (2013) Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting. Cons Biol 27: 480-485*
Hackel JD (1999) The future of Africa's wildlife. Cons Biol 13: 726-734
Joseph LN, et al. (2008) Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a Project Prioritization Protocol. Conser Biol doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01124.x*
Levin S (2013) Interview, much of it relevant to ecology and conservation biology:*
http://www.biodiverseperspectives.com/2013/11/12/diverse-introspectives-a-conversation-with-simon-levin/
Teichman et al. 2013. Trophic cascades: linking ungulates to shrub-dependent birds and butterflies. J An Ecol doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12094*
Wilson HB, et al. (2011) When should we save the most endangered species? Ecol Lett doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01652.x*
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112496160/native-american-tribe-granted-permission-to-hunt-bald-eagles/
http://www.communityconservation.org/publications/InTech-Preserving_biodiversity_and_ecosystems_catalyzing_conservation_contagion.pdf
http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0430-isaacs-rondas.html?fbfnpg
Blogpost on Triage Conservation...Michael McCarthy**:
http://mickresearch.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/triage-does-not-mean-abandoning-the-most-threatened-species/
Blogpost on direct and indirect species interactions in disturbed regimes [***]. How is C-BC/M integrated into this picture?
http://jecologyblog.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/riparian-willow-dynamics-in-yellowstone-associate-editor-commentary/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
"Our approach provides information for generating a 'business plan' for assisting governments and organizations to direct funds toward actions that are most cost-effective and meet stated goals and policy objectives." Carwardine et al. (2012)
Copyright Clara B. Jones