1

Species Conservation Planning Sub-Committee Meeting Notes

20-22 August, 2013, WildCRU, Tubney, Oxford. Present: Mark Stanley price, David Mallon, Urs & Christine Breitenmoser, Caroline Lees, Phil McGowan, Phil Miller, Richard Jenkins, Amielle De Wan, Justin Gerlach, Nigel Maxted, Ken Lindeman (remotely), Lee Pagni (remotely part-time); Dena Cator (Secretariat), Rachel Roberts (SSC Chair’s Office, part-time). Apologies: Arnaud Desbiez 1. Introductions 2. Purpose of SCPSC and overall goal for 2013-2016

Purpose of meeting: o Develop how the SCPSC will work / goal of the group o Identify what it means to be an effective team for species conservation planning o Synthesize approaches to planning (e.g. CBSG and others) o Clarify the involvement of SSC Specialist Groups (e.g. mentoring Specialist Groups)

Nigel – asked about how to work with Specialist Groups – help plan (provide guidelines) and do planning with them? Mark answered that it’s both.

David – Simon Stuart explained that the sub-committee is to assemble best practices for species planning, not to direct the Specialist Groups on one way to plan.

SCPSC ToRs – “To avail to SSC Specialist Groups an accelerated programme of rigorous planning techniques for improved conservation effectiveness for species across their entire ranges, using tested and evolving tools and processes”.

Justin – asked about including language for multiple species planning. The group specified that there can be many different types of planning (e.g. multi-species, range-wide, regional plans, etc.) so no need to specify exactly what type of planning we are dealing with.

The group identified the need for the SCPSC to work towards the deliverables in the Species Strategic Plan which outlines a number of targets relating to species planning.

Ken – it’s important for the SCPSC to link with businesses and industry.

3 SSC Species Conservation Strategy Planning process, activities and potentials 3.1 Experiences using SCS handbook

David – a simple structure towards planning is more robust.

Christine – has needed to change the word “target” to “result” because of language issues.

David and Urs – the full, multi-layered requirements in the handbook are excessive – conceptually and practically– for many users / languages: it needs to be simplified.

Christine – getting reports from planning meetings out in time is a struggle.

Richard – lessons from a recent planning process in Madagascar showed that monitoring and evaluation of plans is really important.

Urs – the ‘big bang’ planning event is not optimal: the whole planning process must be broken into chunks, working with the clients at each, gaining their trust etc.

Phil M– PHVA’s are incorporating a much enhanced “visioning” exercise that could be useful for the SCPSC approach – David agreed with this, as the SCPSC ‘visioning’ = the Open Standards ‘scoping’.

Mark – the present Handbook suffers from presenting planning as a linear process, not a cyclical one of planning – implementing – learning and adapting.

2

Urs – re funding: most plans yield actions that are too expensive to fund; therefore, nothing happens; the lesson is keep it simple and cheap.

David – because of this, Threats must be prioritised so action can focus on priorities when funds are limited.

All – agreed SCPSC must expand out perspectives to be legitimately involved or at least watching implementation, acknowledging that Specialist Groups are not implementing bodies.

Dena – the above are all very important for the next version of the Handbook, so it includes aspects of options, affordability, the appropriate level or depth for the country, or species etc.

3.2 Tool development

Caroline – at the Abruzzi meeting, there was discussion of developing a planning “library” / “resource centre” - the group had agreed on planning steps and categorizing tools for a library. A report of the Abruzzi meeting was completed in 2012 and resulted in the Abruzzi table which is a list of tools discussed, whether quantitative or qualitative, what tool is useful for what aspects of planning, etc. The next step will be to web-enable and communicate it.

Phil M – described CBSG tools and processes including: 1) population viability analysis (modelling tool to assess population extinction risk – tells you what info you have, what you still need, evaluates different management options through Structured Decision Making (SDM); this will be tested at a Javan rhino workshop in 2014), 2) meta-modelling (e.g. climate change – Bob Lacy and polar bears / seals), 3) recovery planning (CBSG is working with the USFWS on threatened species recovery planning guidance – how to form a recovery plan) and 4) multi-species planning (Conservation Assessments and Management Planning or CAMP process – not used as much anymore – was used to develop info for Red Listing – like SIS – but could be good for making high-level management recommendations now – is a data collection and analysis tool). Should we be linking CAMP and SIS for the latter has to be used for Red Listing? The purpose of CBSG is to provide assistance with species conservation planning.

Amielle – described the work of RARE – the purpose is to train local leaders in the developing tropics to run social marketing (not social media) campaigns (e.g. changing smoking, obesity campaigns). It works to link campaigns to changes in behaviour relating to conservation activities using research, design and implementation. RARE does pre and post campaign surveys to determine whether changes are due to the campaign. They use threat identification analysis to help determine how plans can be implemented.

The group clarified that SSC Specialist Groups are not the implementers of species conservation plans themselves but help governments do this.

Dena – the SCPSC is unique in that it reviews and collates “best practice” planning tools (e.g. Abruzzi table and RARE approach to monitoring and implementation) which can help governments plan for species and implement these plans efficiently and inexpensively – providing examples and options of how this is done in the guidelines is key.

Caroline – described the structured decision-making process – it helps you determine what you want from decisions (e.g. commercial, cultural, business objectives), identify results and decision-making. It identifies actions that are needed for an activity to be successful and can help with prioritizing actions for conservation plans.

Action – Rachel to check with Mike Hoffmann whether SSC is planning to obtain a license for a documents sharing / interactive tool like Adobe (e.g. Microsoft Roundtable, Google Plus) – there was discussion about this in Abu Dhabi.

3

3.3 Project cycle issues

Adaptive management – various options were discussed for this, including Miradi (software that takes you through the Open Standards (OS) process which the Conservation Measures Partnership adheres to – tying monitoring and evaluation to objectives, a project management software tool), Conservation Coaches Network (CCNET), Foundations of Success, Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) (a collection of organizations committed to strategic planning and monitoring and evaluation principles – has developed a consistent facilitation and planning framework).

Action – Rachel to follow up with Simon to determine IUCN’s engagement with the Conservation Measures Partnership.

Open Standards process – this process is supported by the MAVA Foundation so if IUCN harmonized with it, it could yield funding from MAVA. There was agreement by the group that following the OS process would be good, and we would use if, as suitable, for version 2, whether it involves Miradi or not. Note: OS v3.0 was launched in April 20-13, and includes SDM.

The Nature Conservancy’s ‘Conservation Business Planning’ is good on SDM.

Note: a new version of Miradi is imminent that will be cloud-based ‘Miradishare’.

Dena – asked whether there is a “map” of what planning tools are applicable and available at what stage of the planning process – this is already in the Abruzzi table but perhaps could be represented diagrammatically as well.

3.4 Climate change

The group wondered how proactive or reactive to be to climate change. PHVAs are already incorporating climate change considerations into their actions, and the new OS considers it throughout, forcing a new perspective.

The uncertainty behind climate change impacts means that results chains may be more useful, and the inherently greater risk involved now argues for adaptive management.

Minimum needs in species planning is (1) assessing vulnerability, and (2) predict new climates; adaptation / mitigation measures must have flexibility built in.

Ken – some aspects less uncertain than others, viz, a 1 m sea level rise by 2100. If climate change in species planning is included explicitly, funding channels are opened; the reverse is true if there is no consideration of climate change.

Issue for debate: is climate change like any other stressor? Opinion within the group was divided. Nigel suggested using climate change impacts as a prioritization system for planning / action.

Amielle – as a threat, climate change operates at every level, and interacts with other threats; hence, it should be seen as a ‘driver of stressors’, not merely one threat.

Action: Amielle is to circulate examples of conservation planning in the USA considering climate change. Action – The SCPSC is to work with the SSC Climate Change Specialist Group to ask for help.

3.5 Planning for multi-species and speciose groups

Ken – described planning for multi-species and speciose groups, protected areas and ecosystem-based management. Fisheries management has been dominated by industry; now the only options for management and planning are through Marine Protected Areas or fisheries agreements. Bringing conservation planning into fish management would be very valuable. Groups that seem further ahead in this process are the Shark SG, Groupers & Wrasses SG. No Red List assessments exist for most of the species that Ken has remit for, so he is thinking of assigning regional champions for Red Listing in his group and investigating

4

which regions to target for planning. A Ghana Red List workshop is a possibility, and the Gulf of Mexico in January 2014.

Multi-species planning often overlaps with area-based planning – don’t see that the two need to be segregated. Mark suggested that marine Specialist Groups could do a gap analysis to determine what Red List assessments need to be done to facilitate planning. David made the point that triaging is important for all SSC Specialist Groups.

Nigel - Crop Wild Relative Specialist Group plan priorities are based on clear criteria of o The economic value of the crop, o The ease of transfer of traits from wild to domesticated (= relatedness) o The degree of threat (including from climate change), o Whether native to the country under consideration or not.

Such priority setting necessary when dealing with 50,000 species including timber trees, medicinal plants etc.; species for human food importance total 1300.

Action – Dena and Rachel to follow up with the SSC Marine Conservation Sub-Committee, particularly with a view to Ken attending / participating. Olivier and Yvonne regarding whether the issue of lack of Red List assessments for fish species in relation to planning can be addressed at their December meeting.

David – linking planning for marine species with their Red Listing seems especially appropriate, but some triage of species likely to be necessary.

3.8 Red Listing and species planning

David – has looked at how similar the various species planning processes are and what features they have in common and which are unique.

The SCPSC agreed that if it is possible to combine Red Listing and species conservation planning, that this should be done where-ever possible. David did this for an okapi planning meeting in 2012. See recent Madagascar lemur plan, covering Red listing and species planning.

The group felt that doing Red List assessments together with planning is too much work and not a good model but taking the results of Red List assessments plus planning works better. If conditions right, Red Listing can be done before planning, but note there may be separate or overlapping participation.

3.10 Endorsement of strategies

The group discussed a new review form for endorsing species conservation plans which is a checklist against the basic elements of the SCPSC guidelines. There was debate about what it means to “endorse” a plan, including what happens when a plan is endorsed (e.g. such as logos being added to the plan). Simon Stuart had recommended that the SCPSC adopt an endorsement process. The group discussed the pros and cons of “review” or “endorsement” of plans. Endorsement was seen as difficult because of various factors: the pressure on members of the SCPSC if they needed to “reject” the plan of an SSC Specialist Group that they often work with, differences in opinion by reviewers regarding the outcomes of the plan, how to deal with rejection in terms of whether to still give feedback and allow resubmission, whether to only endorse plans created by / with SSC Specialist Groups or outside plans as well, how to brand “endorsed” plans, etc. Thus the group leaned towards doing reviews of plans rather than hard endorsements, with text saying that the SCPSC has been involved and how. The group thought that it would be advantageous to give feedback in terms of a plan’s ability to meet the SCSPC guidelines /standard. The group acknowledged that there is a need to clarify what this standard is specifically.

5

Action – Develop a paper outlining SCPSC endorsement and other issues to Simon for the next SSC Steering Committee.

The group agreed that there needs to be more precision regarding what a good plan looks like, the information to be included in a plan and the criteria to evaluate it. Plans should include information on how it will be implemented as well.

4. SCPSC marketing: who do we want as clients and partners and how do we find them? 4.1 Collaborations / partnerships

CBSG – is a member of the SCPSC that can help.

Foundations of Success – is a consultant firm that facilitates open standards planning – the SCPSC decided harmonizing with the Conservation Measures Partnership is more important. Amielle is on its Board.

SSC Amphibian Specialist Group – the Amphibian Survival Alliance has asked the Amphibian Specialist Group to activate the Amphibian Action Plan – they have a working group to do this and SCPSC was asked to help them in terms of being a facilitator – the idea is to use the SCPSC planning process to guide the working group. Mark is co-facilitator with Franco Andreone (amphibian expert).

SSC Climate Change Specialist Group – Mark is a part of this group. They have a conference call every 6 weeks – there is a meeting in Cambridge in December 2013. The group has set up 11 work themes. Mark runs theme 6, ‘Engage with IUCN SSC planning development to ensure it captures latest thinking around adaptation planning ‘ with CCSG members on it comprising Brian Huntley. Resit Akçakaya, Tara Martin and James Watson (Chair CCSG). They want to know what SCPSC wants in terms of support. Ken is already a member of this group, and Amielle has volunteered to join in.

Synchronicity Earth – it already has strong ties with IUCN. One of its interests is neglected species (forests, oceans, freshwater and species) and there might be mutually beneficial overlap between its interests and those of SCPSC. Mark is following up.

Other planning approaches – Nigel outlined the Crop Wild Relative conservation planning approach in a presentation. The group tried to apply for Life+ funding to synchronize with Natura2000 but the EC didn’t understand conservation at the genetic level – Urs wondered if IUCN could speak to the EC about this.

4.2 Marketing Website content and management

The group discussed putting together all the tools and resources available to the SCPSC – it would be advantageous to have one place to go to for these resources.

Action – Dena to investigate smaller URLs for Antelope SG website and SCPSC website. Dena to help with putting the website together if the SCPSC can put together the content.

Action – Caroline will send an email around asking the SCPSC what functionality they want in terms of external and internal websites.

What is SCPSC aiming to do / what is its role – provide assistance for species conservation planning – this is wider than the SSC including governments, organizations. SSC Specialist Groups could take a systematic approach to assisting with this (e.g. gap analysis). Principles of the SCPSC need to be established first and then tool / process development and dissemination and case studies to show best practices. Need to know the barriers to planning uptake in SG’s. The audience is the SSC and anyone else engaged in species planning. Need to specify to the SSC Specialist Groups that planning is new work to be prioritized and needs to be supported.

6

Significant points made: o Should it be a SG or NGO that drives planning, as SG’s will not in general be

implementers of plans; even if NGO’s drive, SG members should participate, o Many SG’s are only networks, and therefore may not collectively understand the

value of planning, o Once aware of the SCS approach, ZSL adopted it immediately for planning for the

Bactrian camel, pygmy hippo etc.; hence, SCPSC interest is in increasing planning for species, and not per se planning or capacity-building in SG’s.

o Many species have no SG, o Some species have only Red List Authorities.

Cost effectiveness of plans – A question was raised of whether to use the IUCN system of threat analysis for SCPSC planning, as a time-saving short cut. The system was considered a bit too rigid for this but there was discussion about synchronizing efforts as much as possible.

Advertising SCPSC as a resource

There is 30,000£ for the SCPSC in 2013 plus a surplus from previous years = approx 50,000£. Previous funds have been used for planning processes – leveraging other funds, which has proven very effective. Right now there are not many other commitments for the sub-committee. There was discussion about using the funds to support members of the SCPSC to attend some workshops. People who come to the SCPSC for help need to provide funds as much as possible – the SCPSC can provide seed funding for species conservation plans as a stimulus but not all funds for planning. The group agreed to advertise a call for proposals to receive SCPSC funding for planning (as seed funds) – would do this by establishing a prioritization process amongst the SSC Specialist Groups first and then sending out an advertisement by email. So not all SCPSC funds would be used on planning then - leaving some for other activities (e.g. urgent requests).

The point was made that it would be helpful as with other funding agencies to create a set of criteria to review the proposals with – this enables the announcement of funds to go to a broad field of applicants while at the same time advertising what SCPSC does and what it is.

There was a question of whether there is a list of Red List assessment / training workshops being produced by Species Programme – Claire sends this out in the SSC e-bulletin.

Action – Nigel and David agreed to investigate obtaining funding by some larger organizations like GEF as they do quite a lot of planning already.

Action – Mark to develop a call for proposals to SSC Specialist Groups for funds from the SCPSC based on the discussion above. Mark summarised his view of prioritisation:

o The Red List will indicate priority species, hence SG’s o We should be opportunistic, per ZSL, o Our priorities re relative neglect e.g. regions, invertebrates, plants.

5. SCPSC development: what do we need to be to play our agreed role? 5.1 Internal to SCPSC

The group spoke about additional membership for the SCPSC. Having a freshwater representative was mentioned as being important. Ken mentioned that he thinks that there should be more marine representation. And also representation from the developing world.

Action – Mark to press further for a freshwater representative on SCPSC. A repeat invitation to Will Darwall was suggested.

There was discussion about whether there were other linkages that SCPSC could make with other organizations to obtain more funding – e.g. Synchronicity. Funding for the guidelines,

7

for a good website is important, so you could roll that into a proposal as a tool along with training.

Action – everyone in the SCPSC to look out for new funding opportunities.

Action – Amielle to draft a new, engaging vision for the SCPSC and revise the objectives based on the new goal and objectives (see below), incorporating some language on the Red List and the Aichi targets (addressing Aichi Target 12 through the Red List – determining what species are at risk and addressing this through conservation planning).

Internal communications

Action – Christine set up a Google site as a way to store SCPSC documents and communicate internally. Christine and Caroline will upload all the materials of the SCPSC for internal use. Everyone to send Christine their skype address.

The SCPSC will continue using email for internal communications, led by Mark. People will correspond with each other directly through their small sub-groups via email and skype.

Action – Mark to think about how to determine and report on the progress of the various sub-groups (working groups) in the SCPSC.

5.2 External to SCPSC - Training

Phil McGowan – has been working with the Freshwater Crab & Crayfish Specialist Group to see if he could help and mentor them. Part of what is important about doing a plan is linking stakeholders together – there was a question about whether it is the Specialist Group’s responsibility or within their capability to do this.

Phil felt training is needed in (1) conservation planning, and (2) facilitation skills. He will be exploring the scope for a Diploma in conservation planning at Newcastle University.

We should look at the TNC online training modules; see also the University of Oregon courses developed by Nicole Duplaix.

We need to resolve training for who? Per Ken’s point, we must triage as we cannot train everyone, and SG’s should be priority.

Action – Ask the SSC Red List Committee whether they can add a field into SIS to specify whether there is a conservation plan in place or needed for a species, so that it’s searchable.

The group discussed looking at the barriers to planning – people often don’t know how to do it and don’t have someone to do it, so often they need more help than just the SCPSC guidelines. The sub-committee agreed to work with SSC Specialist Groups or parts of groups to do planning, especially where there is a motivation / need but not in a forceful way. There is a need to develop the SCPSC tools a bit more first though.

Summary of all action points from August 20-22 SCPSC meeting

Action – Rachel to check with Mike Hoffmann whether SSC is planning on obtaining a license for a documents sharing / interactive tool like Adobe Connect (e.g. Microsoft Roundtable, Google Plus) – there was discussion about this in Abu Dhabi.

Action – Rachel to follow up with Simon regarding IUCN’s engagement with the Conservation Measures Partnership

Action – Dena and Rachel to follow up with Marine Conservation Sub-Committee and Yvonne regarding whether they can discuss the issue of lack of Red List assessments for fish species and relation to planning in December meeting. Talk to Olivier.

Action – SCPSC to deal with the Climate Change SG to ask for help; Amielle to develop key questions for input by CCSG working theme.

8

Action – Need to develop a paper of issues on endorsement for the next SSC Steering Committee.

Action – Discussed asking the Red List Committee whether they can add in SIS a field specifically to specify whether there is a conservation plan in place or needed, so that it is searchable.

Action – Dena to investigate smaller URLs for Antelope SG website and SCPSC website.

Action – Caroline will send an email around asking SCPSC what functionality everyone wants in terms of an external and internal websites.

Action – Dena to follow up with Species / SSC re: identifying groups with problems / successes (relating to list several years ago) for planning prioritization.

Action - David Mallon to send list of plans, their qualities and how similar / different they are.

Action – Nigel and David agreed to investigate obtaining funding by some larger organizations like GEF as they do quite a lot of planning already.

Action – Mark to develop a call for proposals to SSC Specialist Groups for funds from the SCPSC based on the discussion above.

Action – Mark to investigate getting a freshwater representative on board with SCPSC.

Action – everyone to look out for funding opportunities.

Action – Amielle to draft a new, engaging vision and revision to objectives based on the new goal and objectives, incorporating some language on Red List and Aichi target (picking up on the fact that the way to address Target 12 is through the Red List – to determine what species are at risk – and the way to deal with it is through conservation planning.

Action – Christine set up a Google1 site and she and Caroline will upload all the materials of the SCPSC onto that for internal use. Everyone to send Christine their skype address.

Action – Mark to think about how to determine and report on progress of the various sub-groups.

6. Development of Action Plan 2013-2016 Summary of Sub-Committee’s Role:

1. Promote principles of good planning 2. Develop and test processes and tools that lead to more effective species conservation

planning 3. Promote and disseminate tools, processes, best practices related to Species Conservation

Planning. 4. Develop and foster a community of practice around good conservation planning. 5. Primary audience is Specialist Groups. Secondary audience is other groups undertaking

conservation work.

The above were incorporated in a review of the current (from 2009) SCPSC TOR, and some further changes suggested; these are attached as Annex 1;

Action: Mark to present to Simon Stuart and/or SSC Steering Committee for any approval needed.

What does SCPSC want to say in a communication –

Training – want to separate out the planning from the facilitation (which needs to be face to face training). There was discussion about online training – possibly partnering with TNC and their online training facilities.

1 Done at the meeting: https://sites.google.com/site/iucnsscscp/

9

Actions for future Short-term = by end of 2013 Medium-term = by September 2014 Long-term = by end September 2015

Number Task Who

SHORT-TERM

1. Review existing plans and highlight best practices Amielle De Wan, all

2. Explore and document training needs Phil McGowan, Nigel Maxted

3. Use the Red List database to identify priority Specialist Groups for planning action

David Mallon, Nigel Maxted, Justin Gerlach, Ken Lindeman

4. Operationalize and expand the Abruzzi output (web-enable and allow external input from a community of practitioners)

Caroline Lees, Phil Miller, Amielle, all

5. Agree on core minimum critical specifications – draft done (*send everything done already)

Amielle De Wan, Nigel Maxted, Richard Jenkins, all

6. Write up description of landscape of recovery plans

D. Mallon

7. Develop communication strategy needs Phil McGowan, Mark Stanley Price, Dena Cator

8. Set up internal communications capability Phil McGowan, Mark Stanley Price, Dena Cator, Christine Breitenmoser

9. Explore issues around endorsement (cost-benefit, etc.)

Mark Stanley Price, Richard Jenkins

10. Bank plans that have been developed with the assistance of the SCPSC and CBSG and make them available

Mark Stanley Price

11. Develop mechanisms for exchanging planning experiences – e.g. reciprocal attendance at meetings - make organizational diaries available to facilitate this (e.g. Conservation Measures Partnership and SCPSC)

Caroline Lees, Phil Miller

12. Inventory of what has been done using SCS principles (with assistance / knowledge of SCPSC) including information on who did it, when, etc. – get a sense of products with some basic info on each – roadmap – possibly think downstream about columns on implementation to “cost account” whether they are being implemented or not. Also provides a gap analysis.

Ken Lindeman, Caroline Lees, all

13. Gain / import additional experience in planning for “underplanned” groups and situations

David Mallon, Mark Stanley Price

10

14. Complete internal planning process and event description and evaluation form to allow planners to post mortem planning initiatives constructively

Phil Miller, Mark Stanley Price

15. Get money

All

16. Review status of existing plans to assess implementation status, and identify factors working both a promoters and barriers to implementation

David Mallon, all

17. Make sure that we know what other agencies are doing re: conservation planning and what process they are using (e.g. WCS, Birdlife, WWF, TNC, EEA, etc.) – collect these. Comes under harmonization and possible alignment with the Conservation Measures Partnership.

David Mallon

MEDIUM TERM

18. Review and analyze Conservation Measures Partnership for potential alignment

Amielle De Wan, Phil Miller, Caroline Lees

19. Communicate with Centres for Evidence –based Conservation at Bangor and at Cambridge to explore possibility of using this as a receptacle for housing / banking the outcomes of conservation actions – what worked, what didn’t, in a systematic and retrievable way

Phil McGowan, Mark Stanley Price, Richard Jenkins

20. Make sure monitoring implementation and providing a mechanism to inform the SCPSC is included in the best practice principles for planning (see previous action)

Amielle De Wan

LONG-TERM

21. 1. Explore the relationship between Red Listing and species planning across different taxa and different organisations (possible use of MSc student?) BUT STARTING IMMEDIATELY

(Phil McGowan, Caroline Lees)

22. Revise the handbook to produce new guidelines Mark Stanley Price

11

Annex 1. Proposed revised Terms of Reference for SCPSC Terms of Reference – Species Conservation Planning Sub-Committee

Vision:

To avail to SSC Specialist Groups an accelerated programme of rigorous planning techniques for improved conservation effectiveness for species across their entire ranges, using tested and evolving tools and processes.

Background:

The Species Conservation Sub-Committee (SCPSC) is convened by and reports to the Chair of the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC), advised by the SSC Steering Committee.

The Chair of the SCPSC is appointed by the Chair of the SSC. The SCPSC Chair is a member of the SSC Steering Committee.

Goal: Promote SSC principles of planning that lead to more effective species conservation

Objectives of group:

Review existing processes and tools to identify elements of best practice.

Develop and test new processes and tools to enhance best practice in conservation planning.

Promote and disseminate tools and processes.

Develop and foster a community of practice around good conservation planning (learning, improving, practitioner).

Primary audience is IUCN SSC Specialist Groups.

Secondary audience is other groups undertaking conservation planning work.

Responsibilities

1. Promote and support, amongst SSC, Specialist Group (SGs), other species conservation organisations and all relevant stakeholders (IUCN members and partners including conservation NGOs, governments, private sector) understanding of the power of using tested and evolving tools for strategic conservation planning for species.

2. Agree realistic priorities, within available resources, for the entire (IUCN Species Strategic Plan 2013-2016) workplan relating to Species Conservation Planning.

3. Foster the development of capacity through training, linkage between Specialist Groups, and dissemination of examples (e.g., test cases, sample products).

4. Working with the IUCN Secretariat (Species Programme), in coordination with the IUCN regional offices, guide the provision of facilitation and other support services for groups doing strategic species conservation planning

5. Ensure the full breadth of expertise for Species Conservation Planning throughout SSC is harnessed.

6. Ensure an ethos of constant improvement in Species Conservation Planning through testing across diverse cases and identifying needed evolution.

7. Monitor the adoption, outcomes, and impacts of the application of Species Conservation Planning with respect to effectiveness in saving species.

8. (Evolve the) Species Conservation Planning approach.

9. Provide guidance to IUCN Secretariat staff working on Species Conservation Planning, and respond to requests from staff for guidance and help with emerging issues.

12

10. (Advise on, and assist with, fundraising in support of strategic species conservation planning.) (Use the resources of the SC to promote species conservation planning)

11. Advise on opportunities to influence policy, legislation (and conventions) on species conservation planning.

12. Provide regular updates and reports to the SSC Chair and the SSC Steering Committee.

13. Coordinate the species conservation planning activities of this subcommittee with the area conservation planning activities underway in collaboration between SSC and the World Commission on Protected Areas.