Direct Threats
Conservation takes place in the face of a wide variety of threats to natural resources and biodiversity. Direct threats are primarily human activities that immediately affect a conservation target (e.g., unsustainable fishing, hunting, oil drilling, construction of roads, pollution, or introduction of exotic invasive species), but they can be natural phenomena altered by human activities (e.g., increase in water temperature in marine ecosystem caused by global warming) or natural phenomena whose impact is increased by other human activities (e.g., a tsunami that threatens the last remaining population of an Asian rhino).
Changes in climate (e.g., temperature increases, precipitation changes, extreme events like storms and droughts, ocean acidification, and sea level rise) should be considered as direct threats to targets. They may also interact and exacerbate other non-climate threats. A vulnerability assessment that is focused on the project’s targets can be a useful tool in understanding the effects of climate change.
A common challenge for conservation practitioners is prioritizing the most critical threats (and actors) to determine which are most important to address. Often, decisions are made applying an implicit set of criteria to evaluate threats. The danger with this approach is that different people might use different criteria or apply them differently. Moreover, there is a tendency to address threats for which strategies and expertise already exist, rather than addressing those threats that pose the greatest risk to biodiversity at a site.
Threat identification and rating make the implicit assessment of threats more explicit and more objective. The assessment involves determining and defining a set of criteria and then applying those criteria systematically to identifying and prioritizing the direct threats to a project’s conservation targets based on the available evidence. Having completed a threat rating, conservation actions can be selected based on what is needed to reduce the most critical threats to conservation targets.
How To
Identifying critical threats involves using evidence to identify all threats to targets and then prioritizing based on criteria. For prioritization, we describe how to do an absolute target-by-target threat rating, though you may choose to use another prioritization tool.
Identify direct threats to your conservation targets
IUCN-CMP Unified Classifications of Direct Threats (found here) provides a classification of threats that is useful for identifying those that affect targets for your project. Be careful not to confuse direct threats with indirect threats (Box 1). In this step, you should only consider direct threats. You will identify indirect threats (factors that drive or contribute to the direct threats) when you complete your assessment of the conservation situation.
In some cases, you may find yourself evaluating both actual and potential future threats. In the case of potential threats, you may decide only to include them in your rating if they are threats that are likely to occur within your project implementation period (10 years, for example). You might include a road that a local logging company is negotiating with the government as a real potential threat, but you would not include mining as a potential threat if no companies plan to mine in the area over the next ten years
Questions you should try to answer for this step include:
- What human activities are currently taking place in and around your target ecosystems and species, and how do they affect the viability of these targets? Do they occur throughout the site or just in specific areas?
- Are there any climate-related factors and/or natural phenomena that represent significant direct threats to these ecosystems and species (e.g., sea level rise, ocean acidification, more frequent and extreme storms, changes in precipitation patterns, etc.)? Climate change has the potential to present new threats to a target and/or interact with other threats. It may also exacerbate an existing threat or stress. For example, a projected change in the climate (e.g., temperature increases and drought) can either directly (e.g., change in hydrology in wetland) or indirectly (e.g. increase water withdrawal that changes hydrology in wetland) affect the conservation targets.
Beginning with one of your conservation targets, identify the most important direct threats currently affecting the target. Where relevant, you should also include potential threats. Assure that you are identifying direct threats and not indirect threats (Box 1). You will identify indirect threats linked to direct threats later in the guide in the situation analysis.
Because there is so much uncertainty about how the climate will change, human responses to these changes, and how species and ecosystems will fare, we suggest using at least two climate scenarios, usually derived from using multiple climate models, to understand the range of potential futures. (See Climate-Smart Conservation Practice: Using the Conservation Standards to Address Climate Change).
It is best to keep the number of direct threats manageable by including the most critical ones (generally 10 or fewer threats). It may be useful to lump threats. It may be useful to lump threats – for example, clearcutting and selective logging could be lumped into one threat called “unsustainable logging practices.” If, however, these threats are both significant and they are conducted by different actors (e.g., a timber company is clearcutting parts of the forest, while local farmers are extracting mahogany selectively), then you would need to use different strategies to address these threats. In this situation, it would be best to include these threats separately. In our marine example, we distinguished between “illegal shark fishing by boats from the mainland” and “legal but unsustainable fishing by locals” because these types of fishing are conducted by different actors and they would require very different strategies, because one is legal and the other illegal. As shown in Figure 1, sharks in our example are threatened by illegal fishing for shark fins, which is conducted by boats from the mainland. Coral reefs are threatened by bleaching from global warming, diver and anchor damage, and legal but unsustainable fishing by local fishermen.
By identifying the direct threats, including climate-related factors, affecting the targets, you are starting to develop the situation analysis for your project. We will describe the situation analysis in more detail later in the guide.
If useful, include biophysical factors to define the threat-target relationship
For clarity, it may be useful in some cases to include stresses or biophysical factors that describe the biophysical effect of the threat on the conservation target (Box 2). In our Marine Reserve example, it may not be immediately clear how rats (direct threat) affect seabirds. But, say we know that rats result in predation on seabird nests, as shown in Figure 1. For clarity purposes, it can be helpful to put that biophysical factor in the model. Likewise, it is also helpful in this example, to clarify that increased seawater temperature affects coral reefs by causing coral bleaching.
You should review your direct threats to make sure that none of them are biophysical factors. (See Box 2 for guidance on distinguishing between direct threats, biophysical factors, and stresses). Direct threats are human actions and biophysical factors connect a direct threat to a conservation target to clarify the threat-target relationship. Stresses are a type of biophysical factor that represents an altered key ecological attribute (KEA). For example, habitat fragmentation and habitat degradation are both biophysical factors – not direct threats. In the case of a forest target, habitat fragmentation and habitat degradation are the result of direct threats such as commercial logging, agricultural encroachment, mining, road construction, or other human activities.
Understand the criteria for threat rating
The results of any threat rating will depend on the criteria used to rate the threats. For example, you may use the criteria of scope, severity, and irreversibility (Box 3). Although one could use other criteria for the threat rating, many conservation organizations agree that scope and severity are key criteria. To inform the rating system in Miradi, representatives from FOS, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and BirdLife International worked together to compare six existing threat rating systems developed by their organizations and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and the Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP). They analyzed six existing threat measurement systems to make recommendations for a standard threat measurement system. They found that all six of the threat rating methods they analyzed used scope (sometimes called “area” or “extent”) and severity (sometimes called “intensity” or “impact”) as criteria for rating threats. Four of the six methods also used irreversibility (also called “permanence,” "recoverability,” or “recovery time”) as a criterion. Other criteria included urgency, timing, probability (for potential threats), and trend.
Apply the threat rating for each threat-target combination
For each threat-target relationship, you need to rate the threat’s impact on the target according to each criterion – scope, severity, and irreversibility. Miradi uses a 4-point scale (e.g. Very High, High, Medium, Low) for each criterion and then rolls up the results. One advantage of a four-point system is that it is easier to resist the temptation to give an average or middle score, as is the case with a 5- or 3-point scale. You may also set up a spreadsheet to apply the ratings.
Begin by selecting a threat-target relationship. Then, use the definitions in Box 3 to discuss each threat and use the available evidence to rate its effect on the viability of the given target according to scope, severity, and irreversibility. From the marine example, the discussion might include the following (see Figure 2):
- Scope: Evidence shows that increased seawater temperature is a threat to coral reefs, causing coral bleaching. Because shallow reefs are affected, but deep-water reefs are not, the scope is Medium (“localized in its scope”).
- Severity: The severity of increased water temperature as a threat to coral reefs is Very High (“likely to destroy or eliminate the conservation target over some portion of the target’s occurrence”), because some of the coral reefs affected by coral bleaching are completely destroyed (they die), rather than slightly damaged.
- Irreversibility: The irreversibility of increased water temperature on coral reefs is Very High (“it is very unlikely the target can be restored”), because many of the reefs affected by bleaching do not recuperate and, once the corals die, it will take them a very long time to grow back.
It is important not to confuse the three criteria. If scope is High, do not assume that severity and irreversibility will also be High. In our marine example, sewage is a threat to intertidal systems. As shown here, the scope is High (the threat is “widespread”) because there are many small coastal towns that do not have sewage treatment facilities and deposit untreated sewage throughout the intertidal zone. Because these towns have small populations, the severity of this threat is Low (it “only slightly impairs the conservation target”) – the amount of sewage is low in comparison with the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. If the threat of sewage were eliminated, the intertidal systems could recuperate fairly quickly; thus, irreversibility is Low.
Similarly, do not confuse severity and irreversibility. Some threats cause quite a bit of damage (have Medium or High severity), but do not have lasting impacts (i.e., targets are able to recuperate with little or no resource investment – Medium or Low irreversibility) on the targets they affect once the threat is removed. In our marine example, potential oil spills could kill many seabirds and thus seriously degrade this target (High severity). However, once the oil spill is cleaned up, the project team believes that bird populations could recuperate on their own or with low-cost restoration efforts, within five years (Low irreversibility). For species, the irreversibility of a threat depends on the reproductive rate of the species. Because many shark species have a low reproductive rate, the irreversibility of illegal shark fishing (in our marine example) is Very High. As you can see, completing the threat rating may appear simple, but it requires quite a bit of thought to do it well.
Understand and discuss the summary ratings
As shown in Figure 2, once you have defined the ratings for scope, severity, and irreversibility, you can determine a summary rating for the effect of that threat on the target. In our marine example, the summary rating for increased water temperatures is a High threat to coral reefs. It may also be important to understand how each direct threat affects your overall site (not just a specific target). As such, the rating method helps you determine where to act – an often difficult decision when working in complex sites that have multiple threats and multiple targets. In general, the threats that fall into the Very High and High categories will be the ones on which you would focus your project strategies, because they are causing the greatest impact to the targets within your scope. Nevertheless, you may decide to work on a threat that is High or Very High to a specific target but is only Medium or Low within your overall project. This is fine, but you should be clear in justifying why you have made that decision. For example, perhaps not all targets are equal, and it is really important for social, political, or ecological reasons that you focus more energy on one particular target.
The team should use available evidence to identify and prioritize threats to their conservation targets. But evidence for your context may be lacking. In this case, the team should note their information needs and implications of selecting and implementing strategies without this information and how to manage risk by addressing their information needs.
If appropriate, create a map showing the spatial footprint for each threat as they intersect with targets.
Other Methods for Threat Prioritization
There are other ways to do a threat rating as well. Perhaps the most detailed threat ratings are based on the method used by The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Action Planning (CAP) tool (TNC 2003). The method involves detailed ratings of altered KEAs (stresses) and sources of stress (direct threats), using a 4-point absolute scale and applying a series of algorithms to convert the ratings into an overall threat rating. Miradi’s threat rating is a simplified version of the CAP method.
Another method adapted from Margoluis and Salafsky (1998) compares all the direct threats in a given site to one another for each criterion (e.g., ranking the threats according to scope, from the one covering the largest area to the one that is most localized). This involves considering the threats for the overall site, not target-by-target, as presented in the method above. The suggested criteria also differ somewhat. For both absolute target-by-target ratings and relative whole-site rankings, we suggest the use of the scope and severity criteria. For the relative whole-site ranking, however, the third criterion we recommend is urgency. We do not recommend using the irreversibility criterion, because irreversibility is highly dependent upon a specific target’s resilience to a given threat.
Absolute ratings and relative rankings each have their own set of advantages and disadvantages. Absolute target-by-target ratings are more precise, and the results from one project context are comparable to other contexts, if the criteria are applied consistently. Another advantage is that the ratings account for threats that may affect only a limited set of targets. However, absolute ratings require more detailed information about the impacts of each threat to each target.
A relative ranking is helpful if there is not sufficient information to rate threats on the criteria or you need to further prioritize because many of your threats are rated the same. If the relative ranking method sounds more appropriate for your project, you can learn how to apply this approach in Appendix C.
Example
Figure 4 depicts the results of a threat assessment developed by a group of graduate students for the Khata Corridor, a biological corridor linking two protected areas on the border between India and Nepal. The table shows the effect of the six direct threats on each of the site’s conservation targets. White boxes are present wherever a threat does not directly affect a target.
One characteristic of this threat assessment is noteworthy. One of the targets, the Asian elephant, was not directly affected by any of the direct threats identified in the situation model. Despite this, there is an indirect relationship between this target and all of the threats, as the elephant’s persistence in the corridor depends on the maintenance of the forest and grassland ecosystems and functional corridor targets. Illegal wildlife killing received a Very High summary threat rating, even though the effects of this threat are limited to tigers and one-horned rhinos. In contrast, logging and overexploitation of non-timber forest products received Low ratings primarily due to the low severity of their effects in this site.
Practice
Look at the following threats and determine their likely scope, severity, and irreversibility. Because this is hypothetical, you will have to make some assumptions as you determine the ratings. Think about why you would give them the ratings you have chosen. See next page for answers.
Exercise
- Identify the direct threats affecting each of your conservation targets and link them to the targets. If appropriate, map the spatial footprint for each threat as they intersect targets.
- Prioritize each threat by target for scope, severity, and irreversibility. Where you lack information, make your best guess at the rating, but be sure to note any questions or concerns you have. Review the summary ratings for each threat, for each target, and for the overall site.
- If you are missing any information to adequately identify and prioritize threats, discuss and describe the implications of selecting and implementing strategies without this information and how you intend to manage risk by addressing information needs.
- Write a short summary (1-2 paragraphs) of your observations about the process in general. Did the results surprise you? Were the results what you expected? Why or why not? Did you have any challenges in applying the rating?
Answers to the Practice
Unpaved logging road: Scope – Probably Medium, since the road is cutting through only a portion of the buffer zone, its area of influence does not extend to large areas of montane forest; Severity –Medium because the road will allow montane forest to persist around it; Irreversibility – Probably a Low or a Medium because, if the road were left unused, the forest would grow back over the area.
Paved road: Scope – Probably Medium, since the road is cutting through only a portion of the buffer zone; Severity –Very High because the road will destroy the forest in the area that the road occupies; Irreversibility – High or Very High because the pavement is semi-permanent, making it difficult for the forest to grow back over the area.
Overfishing of sturgeon: Scope – Probably Very High, since the overfishing takes place throughout the sturgeon habitat; Severity – Very High or High if the population of sturgeon were almost eliminated; Irreversibility – High if the population can recover but it will take a long time or might be very expensive to make that happen.
Illegal hunting of deer: Scope – Probably High or Very High, depending upon whether the deer is hunted throughout its range; Severity – Very High or High if the population of deer are almost eliminated; Irreversibility – Medium because the deer species are resilient and reproduce quickly.