<strong>Strategic</strong> <strong>Planning</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Species</strong> <strong>Conservation</strong> SCS <strong>for</strong> a poorly-known species in a developing country might depend upon a great deal of capacity development and data collection, and hence might reach their Objective Targets more slowly than those within a SCS involving a well-studied species in a developed country. 8.7 Identifying actors Where possible, a SCS should specify not only what Actions need to be taken, but also by whom. Nominated actors (ideally individuals but sometimes organizations) will be much more likely to carry out the recommended Actions if they were involved in developing the recommendations; indeed, it is rarely appropriate to nominate individuals or institutions to per<strong>for</strong>m particular Actions without their consent. This is one reason why participatory workshops play such an important role in developing management recommendations. The need <strong>for</strong> involvement of nominated actors may constrain the identification of specific actors to national or local Action Plans, which allow participation by greater numbers of local stakeholders than is possible at the regional or range-wide level. Where possible, individuals (usually workshop participants) should be identified to assume primary responsibility <strong>for</strong> initiating particular Actions, even if their primary role is to ensure that other individuals – in the same or another organization – take responsibility <strong>for</strong> implementing the Action. Some examples of actors, nominated within a national Action Plan, are given in Table 8.2. 8.8 Attaching priorities to Actions In a well designed SCS, all of the Actions should be necessary to achieve the Objective Targets; hence, none of the recommended Actions should be superfluous. Nevertheless, it is highly likely that some Actions will make a greater contribution towards achieving the Goals of the SCS than will others, and may thus be considered to have higher priority. For example, if a Status Review <strong>for</strong> an endangered primate indicated that the bushmeat trade represented a more urgent threat than did infectious disease, then tackling hunting would be expected to have higher overall priority than developing guidelines <strong>for</strong> health management. In some cases, groups engaged in developing SCSs may choose to classify Actions according to their priority, perhaps ranking them as “high”, “medium” and “low” priority. Priorities may also be attached to Actions through their timelines, or through the timelines attached to their associated Objective Targets. Hence, in the example cited above, a SCS might require that Actions to reduce hunting <strong>for</strong> bushmeat be implemented within one year, with guidelines <strong>for</strong> health management being developed within five years. Alternatively, depending on circumstances, participants may consider it unhelpful or inappropriate to prioritize among Actions which have all been identified as necessary <strong>for</strong> conservation of the species concerned. Any such priority-setting should recognise that threats vary between sites, and over time, so that priorities need to vary accordingly. As an example, a meta-analysis of mortality causes among African wild dogs revealed that accidental capture in snares set <strong>for</strong> wild ungulates was a major threat to several populations, but non-existent elsewhere, dependent largely on the hunting traditions of local people (Woodroffe et al. 2007a). This means that addressing snaring would be the highest priority <strong>for</strong> conservation of some populations, and completely unnecessary <strong>for</strong> others. Variation of this kind could be encompassed within the strategic planning process by attaching priorities to Actions within local or national Action Plans, but not at the regional or range-wide level. Another important consideration in prioritizing Actions is that different organizations and 73
74 8. Actions individuals have different expertise, and hence different capacities to conduct Actions. For example, a zoo might have the capacity to conduct captive breeding but not habitat restoration, even if the latter was considered a higher priority Action. Thus, different organizations may work to implement different Actions, not always in sequence with any defined priorities. This is in fact useful, as it would be problematic if all actors focused only on the top priority Actions and left lower priority, but still necessary, Actions unattended.
Change language