1 / 22

Joint Venture Conservation Business Model Roundtable December 12, 2006 Austin, TX

Working with Work Groups : The PLJV Experience. Joint Venture Conservation Business Model Roundtable December 12, 2006 Austin, TX. Objectives:. Describe how the PLJV used technical working groups to revise Implementation Plan (Note: Planning only; not Monitoring and/or Evaluation)

ojal
Download Presentation

Joint Venture Conservation Business Model Roundtable December 12, 2006 Austin, TX

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Working with Work Groups: The PLJV Experience Joint Venture Conservation Business Model Roundtable December 12, 2006 Austin, TX

  2. Objectives: • Describe how the PLJV used technical working groups to revise Implementation Plan (Note: Planning only; not Monitoring and/or Evaluation) • Use the PLJV case study as a springboard for discussions among JVs (comparing and contrasting approaches)

  3. Approach: • Explain PLJV Technical Work Group: • Structure within PLJV • Membership • Leadership • Work methods • Products • Emphasis on lessons learned regarding partner engagement and buy-in

  4. PLJV “Unique Circumstances”: • “Established” JV (formed in 1989) • Large, multi-state JV (6 states) • JV technical team (“MERT”) in place • Several staff in place (but new), including biologists and GIS • Existing I-Plan, but outdated (1994), lacking science-based population and habitat objectives, and waterfowl-only emphasis • Master Plan recently developed; describes general planning approach and how planning fits within overall PLJV business model

  5. Goal: Revise the PLJV’s Implementation Plan • Integrated for all the bird initiatives • Science-based: • Population objectives stepped-down from continental objectives where possible • Habitat objectives linked to population objectives with the best possible science • 2-year timeframe • Challenge: • Determine how PLJV’s new staff will work with partners to accomplish this goal

  6. Timetable:

  7. Structure Development: • PLJV staff consulted with other JV staff • Prospectus with 8 options (pros, cons) for developing biological foundation: • Staff and MERT roles (mix) • State, bird initiative, or habitat-focused groups (mix) • Long discussion with MERT

  8. Structure Development, cont.: • Further strategizing by staff • “The Memo” • Recommended a planning process (who, what, when, why…) • Q & A format • Attached FWS Dir. Order 146, State Comp. Plan required elements, draft PLJV state plan format • Sent hard copies to The World

  9. Recommended Approach: • Phase I: Developing the Biological Foundation(bird teams determine priority species, population objectives, limiting factors, important habitats, species*habitat relationships, models for habitat objectives, etc.) • Phase II: State-specific Implementation Planning(state teams use Phase I results to develop state habitat actions) • Phase III: Overall PLJV Implementation Plan(staff rolls up state objectives)

  10. Recommended Structure: Management Board Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research Team Waterfowl Planning Team Shorebird Planning Team Waterbird Planning Team Landbird Planning Team State Teams (but never formalized)

  11. Planning Team Membership: • MERT members • Staff • Outside experts • Within PLJV • Some from outside PLJV • Technical partners engaged in PLJV planning grew from ~12 to ~40

  12. Planning Team Leadership: • 2 co-chairs for each planning team (share the load) • 3 teams both MERT and staff • 1 team MERT only

  13. Planning Team Work Methods (team interaction and decisions): • Co-chairs decide how team conducts its business • Meetings (1 team meets approx. annually) • Conference calls • Email

  14. Primary Planning Products: • Area Implementation Plans • Short, plain • Components = title, background, area description, habitat recommendations, habitat acreage table (complex) • Written by staff (who developed integrated habitat objectives)

  15. Primary Planning Products, cont.: • Planning Guide • Explains process and products • Written by staff • Planning Team Reports • Summarizing team’s work…priority species, population objectives, etc…. • Written by co-chairs (mostly staff) • Habitat Assessment Procedures • Written by staff

  16. “Do Different” - Structure: • Add “Habitat Assessment” Team • Habitat parameters = weakest buy-in for carrying capacity models • Formalize State Teams • Role in developing integrated habitat objectives and writing state Area Implementation Plans

  17. “Do Different” – Team Membership: • Review and revamp planning team membership with every I-Plan update • Seek membership recommendations from bird initiative coordinators and technical teams

  18. “Do Different” – Team Leadership: • Include staff co-chair on all teams • Hire staff who are capable team leaders

  19. “Do Different” – Team Work Methods: • Recommend (but don’t require) at least 1 meeting per planning cycle or annually

  20. “Do Different” – Planning Products: • Team Reports - discuss content and format and develop guidelines • Area Implementation Plans • Nicer cover page • Signatures • Define audience • Recommended reading section • Simpler habitat table (estimated current acreage) • Habitat map

  21. Summary: • PLJV now has 4 years experience with science-based planning • Next few weeks: • Board and team meetings • Launch of revised AIPs • Still learning and adapting…..stay tuned!

  22. www.pljv.org

More Related