1 / 12

Perspective: Action Plan Relevance to our Agency and Key Partners

tejana
Download Presentation

Perspective: Action Plan Relevance to our Agency and Key Partners

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. Making Plans Relevant and Used by Agencies and Partners Discussion Leaders: Karen Terwilliger, Anna SmithHow and when do state Wildlife Action Plans have “traction” within the host fish and wildlife agency and their partners? How can states help each other raise the profile of action plans? What is the role for AFWA in raising the profile of action plans?

  2. Perspective: Action Plan Relevance to our Agency and Key Partners • State Wildlife Action Plan KEEPS our AGENCY relevant • to the core and scope of its authority/mission • to its full responsibility to the resource- all wildlife • to its broader constituency- the public =The opportunity to be the relevant state agency in wildlife conservation

  3. Relevance of Plan for Agency and Partners The Plan can be: • The united blueprint for a full service State Fish and Wildlife Agency • Vehicle to deliver holistic wildlife conservation – overabundant to rare- and show all the connections and interrelationships • The bridge, the glue between consumptive and non consumptive management and constituency • The Plan makes the agency relevant- documents its commitment to its responsibility, authority and constituency • The transformation to a broader constituency and holistic conservation/landscape science

  4. History and Context of Wildlife Conservation Era of Abundance - 1500 to 1849Era of Over-exploitation - 1850 to 1899Era of Protection - 1900 to 1929 Era of Game Management - 1930 to 1965 Era of Environmental Management - 1966 to 1979 • Era of Conservation Biology - 1980 to present Have our State Agencies adapted and evolved to meet the need and authority for Wildlife Conservation?

  5. Gaps were filled by other programs/agencies, NGOS, partners- e.g. NHP-NatureServe, environmental review, etc.

  6. A Conservation Institution for the 21st Century: Implications for State Wildlife Agencies-JWM- Jacobson et al. “The wildlife conservation institution needs to reform to maintain legitimacy and relevancy in the 21st century” Principles for a State Agency Institution (N AM Model): • Public Trust Doctrine-all species and publicly owned • Broad Based funding • Trustee based governance- politics, accountability • Multidisciplinary Science as basis • Diverse stakeholder involvement Is the State Wildlife Action Plan this Opportunity?

  7. Agency Investment in Wildlife Diversity and the Wildlife Action Plan

  8. Objective: Plan Used by Agency and Partners Use is correlated with: 1- Need or demand- ($, incentive)-fills a need Provides data, criteria, support 2- Investment- participation/engagement Confirms need to involve agency & partner programs • The more it supplies a demand, fills a need, supports a program, the more relevant and used it will be • The more the agency has invested in it the more it will be used • What do they give to or get from it? Our message should target this • What do our agencies have to loose- vs gain by not being inclusive and involving them- constituency and authority?

  9. State Wildlife Action Plan Relevance: • Elements 1-5 offer sound Conservation Planning Approach (6-8 interwoven into process) • Simple Format for Plan- Element= Chapter • ID conservation targets that can represent ALL species (harvested to endangered) • Package inclusively into key habitats for all species not just SGCN (group by habitat or functional units) • ID Threats and Actions that affect all species not just SGCN and highlight inclusive priorities • Keep it simple, user friendly and in their language

  10. How it can be Used and Relevant to State Agency Traction for Inreach • Habitat- data can be used by all agency programs • NE geospatial condition analysis, • Conservation assessment- regional habitat data • CC resiliency, connectivity, etc. • Information on habitat, condition and trends, etc. • All programs can use for proposals, competitive advantage- use support of habitat and broader suite of species with more information and support from broader constituency • NE- Regional Best Practices- lexicon Elements 1-8 www.rcngrants.org synthesis of 50 RCN projects

  11. How it can be used by Partners Recognize: Too much for Agency to do alone! Partners have already been filling the gaps/roles that the agency couldn’t provide. Strengthen those partnerships! • Include them and their common programs- development and implementation- gives them credibility and visibility. RI Liaison to towns partnership. • They offer their valuable strengths- they can do/lobby more and enhance outreach to their broader constituency- give them info they need for mutual benefit- win-win! • They have to write plans too: e.g. AL TNC and other state agencies want to develop joint plan- use SWAP for theirs. Incorporate each others’ plans for mutual support and visibility.

  12. More Traction Together • States help states- coordination - e.g. Northeast e.g.- Monthly calls, newsletter and website, synthesis, lexicon- consistency and regional context 50 RCNs • Federal agency support incorporating them into their plans/programs • NRCS ranking criteria, NWRs CCPs, USFS Plans, State Forest Plans- incorporate the Plan Actions • AFWA guidance, coordination- more? • All PLANS add the action about State Wildlife Conservation Agency transformation for increased capacity and resources?

More Related