Approaches to Conservation Management

Abstract

We need to employ a wide variety of different approaches to managing wildlife. No single management solution can suit all circumstances. In broad terms, nature conservation planning and management can be divided into three, possibly four, main approaches: Management planning by prescription is when a plan prescribes or describes management actions, and although particular outcomes are required these are not specified. Management by prescription is rarely a valid approach, although it may occasionally be an inadequate but necessary compromise. But, even in these cir-cumstances, there is a great deal to be gained from making some attempt to describe the intended outcome. Management by defining conservation outcomes was developed in recognition of the legal requirement to protect specified features on statutory, and other, sites. In outline, this approach is based on identifying the most important features on a site. The desired outcome for each feature is defined, and these are the management objectives. Although a features approach is imperfect, it is the most appropriate approach for many sites. Currently, there are no alternatives for sites where the features have legal status and were the basis for site selection. It is always applica-ble in situations where the features are plagioclimatic plant communities or populations of a species. Wilderness management usually implies an acceptance that natural processes will maintain a wilderness ecosystem providing anthropogenic threats or factors are removed or kept under control. There is an immediate issue with defining what is meant by control, but the real problem lies in the idea that 'natural' excludes humanity. Regardless of how we choose to define wilderness, with or without people, and given that the only thing that we can be sure of is that these places will change, how will we know that the changes that we observe are acceptable? Will we ever be able to differentiate between changes that are a consequence of anthropogenic or natural factors? The purpose of experimental management is to test ideas and practices, and the outcomes will not necessarily be of benefit to wildlife. There are very few examples of habitat-scale experiments. We know that, if we are to progress and become more effective and efficient at conserving wildlife, we need large-scale experimental management, and we need to explore new ideas and directions. M. Alexander, Management Planning for Nature Conservation. 105 © Springer 2008 106 9 Approaches to Conservation Management Keywords experimental management, management by defining conservation outcomes, management planning by prescription, wilderness management 9.1 Introduction The single most important stage in any management plan is deciding what we want: these are the desired outcomes or objectives of management. It is extremely diffi-cult to decide what we want to achieve if we have little or no idea of what can be achieved. This is not to suggest that almost anything can happen anywhere, but there will, in many situations, be some choices. We need to employ a wide variety of different approaches to managing wildlife. No single management solution can suit all circumstances since the condition of natural and semi-natural habitats varies from almost pristine to completely derelict. Populations of species can range from being robust and viable to fragile and close to extinction. Since the starting point for management (i.e. the condition of a fea-ture) varies so too will the outcomes. We will often have to make choices (though these will be limited by natural factors) guided by legislation and influenced by corporate or personal ethics. Usually, the management of protected natural areas is about trying to prevent people from doing things, or about attempting to undo (or at least minimise) the impact of things that they have done, are doing or will do. Occasionally, we need to persuade or encourage people (sometimes with payments) to continue doing something that they may no longer wish to do. Or, in their absence, we do whatever they once did. Whatever we do, we need to start doing it on a much larger scale. The need for a landscape-scale approach, or an entire ecosystem approach, has become widely recognised and supported. As with all new ideas, this concept has a cohort of enthu-siasts, and a few seem to take the view that we should abandon other approaches, i.e. the traditional, small nature reserve or protected area. There are, in fact, many very good reasons for maintaining smaller sites, certainly until we have sufficient large sites (if that is ever achievable). Small sites can grow and provide the founda-tions for large sites. We will also need to retain some smaller secluded areas because of their importance for the preservation of the local genetic variation found in naturally isolated populations. Small sites also provide the stepping stones that allow species to move. We should have no doubt that climate change is happening. Conservation managers must be prepared to take whatever actions are necessary to ensure that wildlife has opportunities to cope with change. In Europe, we already have evidence that species are moving northwards. For example, many butterflies with a southerly distribution in Britain have expanded in the northern part of their range. More significantly, many species have failed to respond to recent climate changes because of the lack of suitable habitat (Hill et al. 2002). Consequently, in addition to establishing