OBJECTIVES & ACTIONS

The site vision is a statement – from a positive, though realistic, perspective – of what the site will be like in the future, taking into account the evaluation of the site’s strengths and weaknesses. By stating an end point (or at least a way-point), the vision can be really helpful in establishing the management objectives. It can extend to include all aspects of the site, not only its nature conservation features.

Different timeframes are used by organisations for the vision:

• A 25 year vision has the advantage of being relatively tangible, the end point of a few management plan cycles (how many depends on the length of the plan, of course), but it may not be a sufficient period to allow the recovery of natural processes if they are one of the objectives.
• A 50 year vision will allow for more ambitious objectives to be realised, but some organisations find that it sets too wide a gap between the current plan and the future scenario, thereby becoming unrealistic and less helpful in forming management objectives. To get around this, a 50 year vision might help define objectives more readily if it is supplemented by shorter-term milestones, effectively saying that to reach point z in 50 years’ time, we aim to achieve x in 15 years and y in 30 years.

Favourable Conservation Status
For Natura 2000 sites (or sites that sit within a larger Natura 2000 area), a statement of how the site could contribute to achieving the favourable conservation status of its features is a necessity, and would logically form part of the vision statement.

Recent guidance on Article 17 reporting (a progress report required every six years) for Natura 2000 sites, states that for a plan to be considered to fulfil the requirements for the Habitats Directive, it should cover all parts of the Natura 2000 site.

For non-Natura 2000 sites (eg Ramsar sites), an equivalent description of what the destination should be for its nature conservation features undoubtedly forms part of the vision statement.

However, many protected areas have purposes that reach beyond the condition of habitats and species, such as management of geological or archaeological features, engaging with the public and undertaking environmental research. If the plan is intended to cover all aspect of the site, it’s logical that the vision should address these aspects too.

Links to additional information

• Example: A 50-year vision Alton Mere
• Example: Gebiedsvisie Lage land van Texel 2019-2037 (in Dutch)
• Reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive – explanatory notes and guidance for the period 2013-2018

Management plan objectives set out what we want to do during the period covered by the plan to move the site towards realisation of the Vision.

Objectives are formal statements detailing a desired outcome of a project. We recommend to use “SMART” criteria for setting goals and objectives. SMART objectives are: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Therefore, when creating a project’s objectives, each objective should respond to a specific area of improvement or answer a specific need.

Some examples of SMART objectives can be found below:

• By 2013, none of the landowners in the Swan Coastal Plain create fire breaks as part of their vegetation management regime.
• By 2021, at least 60% of the grass lands have mixed grazing techniques using sheep and cattle.

Links to additional information

• Example: Toetsbare doelen ZW Veluwe (in Dutch)
• Open Channels: Identifying Measurable Objectives

Clear and transparent decision-making is fundamental to the long-term success of any conservation management project. These decisions include a) identifying the habitats and species that should be prioritised for management and monitoring resources, and b) listing these habitats and species in priority order. These should be dispassionate decisions, ideally made on the basis of a logical process and not influenced by personal bias.

Conservation bodies are often responsible for directly managing, or overseeing the management of, sites of conservation interest. Without exception, the resources available for doing this are limited. With so many threatened habitats and species and limited resources for management and monitoring, we need to develop a system that identifies the habitat(s) or species of primary conservation importance on each site, and then use that information to identify the sites of conservation priority. One way to do this is to develop a scoring system based on the international, national and regional resource for each protected habitat, taking into account the species of conservation importance dependent on each habitat. This would dispassionately identify the conservation priority on each site. An example of this approach can be found here.

This approach could be expanded to take other key attributes into account, such as the area coverage of a certain habitat (or size of the species population) on the site, the potential to increase the area of the habitat within the site, and the potential to expand the habitat / species into adjacent land parcels outside the site.

Without a dispassionate and transparent approach to prioritising our resource allocation for conservation management and monitoring, we run the risk of management discontinuity every time that a new conservation manager is appointed. We also run the risk of inadvertently discriminating against some ‘unfashionable’ habitats and species on all protected sites.

Links to additional information

• Hurford, C. (2017). Decision making and prioritisation for nature conservation. Opera Corcontica 54, Suppl. 1. [in Czech].
• Hurford, C. (2006). Identifying the conservation priority: using limited resources to best effect. In: Hurford, C., Schneider, M. (eds) (2006) Monitoring nature conservation in cultural habitats: A practical guide and case studies. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
• Usher, M.B. (1973) Biological Management and Conservation: theory application and planning. Chapman and Hall.

When considering the conservation strategy, first we should ascertain whether there is already a national or international conservation strategy for the protected habitats and species in our site, and if so, how these aspects of our site fit into it. In reality, the answer is probably that currently, such a conservation strategy does not exist. Therefore, we should consider how the elements of our sites contribute to the regional or national resources. This should be considered anyway as part of the prioritisation process (see section on ‘Conservation priority‘).

After determining how the protected habitats and species contribute to the regional resources, we then need to consider how best to secure these in the future. The most simplistic, and common approach is to focus funding resources on the most important locations for these habitats and species. However, if limited funds are available for managing these sites, perhaps other factors when prioritising our resource allocation should also be considered, such as:

• How isolated the protected habitats and species sites are from the next closest stands/populations.
• Whether there is potential to increase the extent and quality of the habitat or expand the species population within the site.
• Whether there is the potential to expand the extent of habitat/range of the species into adjacent and currently unprotected land parcels.

The critical questions centre around whether the available resources should be priotirised for sites where there is the potential for expansion, both within the sites and, perhaps most importantly, outside it. Furthermore, if we only have the resources to manage three sites, should it always be those with the highest potential for expansion and survival into the medium / long-term future, even if stronger species populations currently persist on more isolated sites?  Whatever we decide, we should consider what our conservation strategy should be, to protect these habitats and species in the medium and long-term future.

Scope for habitat expansion

A management plan for a protected area of whatever shape, size or designation typically includes some description of its important features, evaluation of their condition and what factors influence them, combining that information to draw up management objectives and a statement of the actions required. Specific plan formats often include some or all of these elements but may use different names, or vary in the order in which they are dealt with or the emphasis put on particular sections.

Plans also vary in terms of their intended audience: some are for conservation professionals only, others are for stakeholders as well, or for the wider public. The style in which the plan is written will obviously differ according to the audience it’s written for.

Find more guidance on selecting an appropriate conservation strategy here.

Links to additional information

• Hurford C. (2017). Decision making and prioritisation for nature conservation. Opera Corcontica 54, Suppl. 1. [in Czech].
• Usher, M.B. (1973). Biological Management and Conservation: theory application and planning. Chapman and Hall.
• Example National Nature Reserves in England – Site management policy

A table or matrix that sets out the site’s key strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats can be a useful tool. It can be particularly appropriate to involve the main stakeholders in this stage of the plan, to collect views from various viewpoints.

Site strengths can include strong or diverse species populations, large areas of important habitats, the site’s visual appeal, visitor access features and other features described positively in the site description section.

Site weaknesses are characteristics of the protected area or factors relating to it that can have a negative effect on its management. This could include isolated species populations, difficult habitat management and land ownership issues.

Opportunities can be thought of as external factors which benefit site management. Obligations, such as meeting Natura 2000 requirements, could be considered to be desirable opportunities to further the conservation management of the site.

Threats, or challenges, have a negative impact on the site’s management, and could include climate change, air pollution, water management, disturbance, nearby development or incompatible management of adjacent land.

Links to additional information

• Example: Site Analysis

A commonly applied approach is to develop a five-year action plan/work programme is to  link each project to one (or more) objective. As there are many ways of creating an action plan, we cannot recommend a one-size fits-all approach. We can, however, provide a few general guidelines and options, these include:

• Using codes to describe each type of project; this can be helpful when applied across several sites, enabling standardised reports and comparisons between sites.
• Incorporating resource requirements, both financial and staff time, allowing information from the management plan to inform financial plans and be used for funding bids.
• State both the anticipated budget requirement and the aspirational budget, e.g. by identifying ‘need to have’ and ‘nice to have’ components of the plan.
• Develop GANTT charts to plan projects, especially where one task is dependent on another.

Links to additional information

• TNC, 2007. Guidance for Step 8: Develop Work Plans for Actions and Measures in Conservation Action Planning Handbook. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 
• Example: GANTT Chart (Appendix 1) in John Rieger, John Stanley and Ray Traynor, Project Planning and Management for Ecological Restoration, DOI 10.5822/ 978-1-61091-566-3.
• Example: WWF Standards of Conservation Project and Programme Management (PPMS) GANTT Chart template. 

‘Site unitisation’ was developed as part of the conservation planning process in Wales, primarily to identify how each land parcel within the boundary of a protected area should contribute to its overall conservation value. The basic principle is that we should identify which habitat or species, if any, should be the management priority for each discrete management unit. We should also indicate a) whether any other important habitats or species are known to be present in the management unit and b) whether they are likely to be impacted positively or negatively by the proposed management. Note that the management priority in a management unit is nearly always a habitat, because even if the conservation priority in a unit is a species, our action almost always involves a habitat management response: we rarely directly manage the species.

The development phase of a site unitisation plan requires the involvement of the land owners, the land managers and ecologists who are familiar with both a) the ecological requirements of the important habitats and species and b) the local distribution of the important habitats and species on the site. As a general rule, it is better to involve as many of the important stakeholders as possible at the outset (especially those likely to be affected by the decisions), as this will reduce the likelihood of resentment and resistance as the project moves into its application phase. It is always better to be aware of any barriers to progress early in proceedings rather than after the decisions have been made.

The main purpose of the unitisation process is to form the basis for well-informed conservation management decisions. Not all site managers are comfortable with the process because it means favouring some habitats and species over others. However, this will happen anyway, just in a less considered, ad hoc process. The alternative is to divide the management funding equally which, in all probability, will mean that no habitat or species will be adequately protected into the future, though they will all be discriminated against equally. A case study illustrating the site unitisation process can be found here.

Links to additional information

• Hurford, C. (2017). Decision making and prioritisation for nature conservation. Opera Corcontica 54, Suppl. 1. [in Czech].