Shared Conservation Priorities Assessment: Phase 1 Briefing

1. Shared Conservation Priorities Assessment: Phase 1 Briefing June 24, 2012 Lyndsey Girod, U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Courtney Flint, Ph.D. U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

2. Phase 1 Assessment Methods • 30 interviews conducted March – June • Steering Committee (17/28) • Technical Core Team (10/10) • LCC Staff (3/3) • 14 in person/16 by phone • Interviews transcribed and themes analyzed using NVivo 9 qualitative analysis software

3. Findings: Role of the LCC • Perspectives on what the LCC should NOT do: • Step on jurisdictional toes or be redundant in their efforts (30%) • Be a pass-through mechanism or just another RFP process (13%) • Implementation on the ground (13%) • Science that doesn’t directly link to management (10%) • Dictate priorities top-down (10%) • Cultural resources (3%) • Some of these suggestions may conflict with perspectives about what the LCC should do.

4. Findings: Role of the LCC • Communication and Coordination Role (73%) • Communication of regional efforts • Newsletter • Coordinate existing efforts • Planning document revisions (e.g. SWAPs) • Climate change & Adaptation • Monitoring • Create platform to simplify money transfers between partners • Identify and articulate shared priorities for the region • Encourage landscape and ecosystem level thinking • Including human dimensions • Host discussion forums about regional topics • New trans-boundary planning and implementation • Education and Outreach

5. Findings: Role of the LCC • Science (43%) • Identify science gaps and needs for the region • Link science to management • Focused research on vulnerable species • Translate science into policy • Assisting the region with vulnerability assessments • Information and Data (30%) • Provide a mechanism for information and data sharing • Website, sharepoint, clearinghouse • Decision-support tool development

6. Summary: Role of the LCC • Perspectives on what the LCC SHOULD do can be categorized into three types of roles: • Communication and Coordination (73%) • Science (43%) • Information and Data (30%) Clear consensus or direction will help when synthesizing shared conservation priorities in the next phase of this assessment. Which roles will we embrace and which will we exclude? Emphasis on some things we are doing less of.

7. Findings: LCC committee roles ** Note, this was not a question in the interview, however, some perspectives emerged about the roles of the two committees ** • Technical Core Team Role • Develop scientific approaches and questions about the priority issues • Set priorities • Bring the expertise about issues • Set direction • Do the work the Steering Committee directs (i.e. create databases or run analysis) • Coordinate LCC efforts • Steering Committee Role • Set direction • Set priorities • Build the collaboration • Identify science needs • Be the communication piece Some potential conflicts emerged between roles, are these adequately addressed in new “Operational Procedures?”

8. Findings: Effective Collaboration • Coordination versus Collaboration • Interview question assessed interpretations of the words coordination and collaboration. These distinctions may be important when considering the role of the LCC, as well as the staff and committee roles going forward. • Coordination • “Anybody can say, well we coordinate with this or that organization. That can be a phone call, that can be an annual meeting… that’s not really working together”. • “Coordination is like I’m doing my thing, you’re doing your thing but we’re kind of, trying not to crash into each other”. • Collaboration • “Collaboration is people rolling up their sleeves and doing work together”. • “Collaboration is when my work is actually benefitting your work and visa versa”

9. Findings: Effective Collaboration • Experiences with collaboration: • Almost everyone is very used to collaborating and does quite a bit of it (87%) • There is recognition that collaboration is necessary. • “There’s no single agency, no organization, I don’t care how large, that can do it all. Nobody has all the money, nobody has all the knowledge, nobody has all the people that can do what’s needed out there. We all have different skill sets and different areas of interests and I think we have to collaborate. It’s just something we need to do.” • “I don’t think we could achieve conservation on the ground without it. I mean I think those partnerships and collaborations, developing from the beginning, where you want to go and where you want to be, and how you want to measure your success, is critical to getting anything accomplished.”

10. Summary: Effective Collaboration • To LCC participants in Phase 1, coordination means to lead, direct, or manage, while collaboration means to work together. • What does that mean for the roles of the LCC Staff and committee members? • Nearly all participants were experienced with collaboration • Barriers to collaboration include: • Constrained Resources (63%) • Number of existing partnerships in the UMGL region (30%) • Inflexible policies & procedures (27%) • Individual personalities not suited to collaboration (27%) • Lack of effective communication (17%) • Failure to define clear goals and responsibilities (17%) • Best strategies to collaboration include: • Build Trust and relationships (43%) • Constant Communication that reaches people (40%) • Set shared goals and strategies (33%) • Having people with collaborative personalities (17%) Broad consensus exists on the how we should work together. Almost all points of consensus can be used to guide operations of the LCC.

11. Findings: Criteria for LCC Projects • 5 groups of criteria were articulated: • Landscape-scale focus (57%) • Specific topics (50%) • Focus on existing need & greatest good (27%) • Management relevance (27%) • Administrative considerations (7%)

12. Findings: Criteria for LCC Projects • Landscape-Scale Focus (57%). Articulated in two main ways. • Geographicscale of the issue: Should be an issue that occurs across most of the UM&GL region. Articulated as: • Large-scale ecological processes. • The issue is prevalent in many of the ecosystems represented in this region. • Applicability or relevance to number of partners: Should be an issue shared by many partners and jurisdictions in the region. Articulated by either: • The number of partners affected by the issue. • The number of agency partners committed to working on the issue. ** Scale considerations ** • Large scale: Number of LCC’s a project or focus would benefit. versus • Smaller scale: LCC work needs to benefit states so they can justify involvement.

13. Findings: Criteria for LCC Projects • Specific Topics (50%) Specific topics were put forth as potential criteria for LCC projects. They are grouped below into categories of topics for consideration. • Landscapesrepresented in the region: • Great Lakes • Fisheries • Water • Grasslands • Forests • Prairies • Wetlands • Unique landscapes • Vulnerable landscapes • Species & species characteristics • Fish and wildlife • Species health • Vulnerable species • Ecosystem characteristics • Biodiversity • Threats • Such as climate change or invasive species • Environmental functions and processes • Resiliency • Ecosystem services • Management • Adaptation & planning • Humans • “People in nature”

14. Findings: Criteria for LCC Projects • Focus on Existing Need & Greatest Good (27%) • Suggested criteriaquestions: • Where is conservation money already going and how can the LCC add value to that issue? • Are there gaps in information? In funding? • Are multiple entities going to benefit if the LCC gets involved? (i.e. biggest bang for the buck). • Don’t duplicate existing efforts. • Is a specific issue not being adequately handled by existing efforts?

15. Findings: Criteria • Management Relevance(27%) • Criteria linking issues or projects to management were articulated in the following ways: • Producing management relevant tools and science • Should be existing understanding of how tools or science will be implemented or applied. • Should be clear how the tools or science will help agencies on the ground. • Should help manage through uncertainties of transition period. • Can address science debates about the costs and benefits of management actions.

16. Findings: Criteria for LCC Projects • Administrative Considerations (7%) • Seek opportunities for politically and socially important projects and where there is funding • Consider credentials of scientists applying for funding • Consider overhead rate • Consider matching funds

17. Summary: Criteria for LCC Projects • What are the boundaries for the 5 criteria categories? • Examples: • Landscape-scale focus • What is landscape-scale? LCC-wide? Larger or smaller than an LCC? • Specific Topics • Vulnerable Species? Only wide-ranging? • Existing Need and Greatest Good • How will we assess that? • Management Relevance • How will that be measured? • Administrative Concerns • What overhead is acceptable? Clear consensus on criteria the LCC will use to identify LCC projects is critical before looking at shared conservation priorities later on in this assessment.

18. Findings: 5-Point LCC Conservation Framework

19. Summary: 5-Point LCC Conservation Framework • Approximately half of the participants were familiar and comfortable with adaptive management cycles similar to this. (43%) • Critiques stem from how the elements of the framework relate to each other and to actual practice. (20%) • Most comments about using the Framework relate to how the LCC is going to move this conceptual framework to an implementation framework. (7%) Reflection and consensus on the 5-Point LCC Conservation Framework will help when looking at shared conservation priorities later on in this assessment. Do we agree “Conservation Actions” lay outside the purview of the LCC? Will/can the LCC take on “Out-come Based Monitoring” which seems to be a common weakness?

20. Going forward • We hope these findings stimulate meaningful conversations about the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes LCC and it’s role in this region. • Phase 2 will: • Synthesize and present findings on shared conservation priorities in light of your clarification and discussion on Phase 1 interviews on roles and criteria • Assess perspectives from regional entities not currently represented in the region to assess response to priorities