Transcript Document 7334781

Prioritising management for conservation
in New Zealand: from science to practice
Liana Joseph
Applied Environmental Decision Analysis Research Facility
University of Queensland
Belinda Mellish
Department of Conservation, New Zealand
Richard Maloney
Department of Conservation, New Zealand
Hugh Possingham
Applied Environmental Decision Analysis Research Facility
University of Queensland
The conservation problem
The Science...
• Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a technique for selecting
among competing wants wherever resources are limited.
Cost Effectiveness = benefits of management
Ratio
cost of management
• Developed in the military, CEA was first applied to health care in
the mid-1960s and was introduced with enthusiasm to clinicians in
1977.
• Our role (a collaboration of scientists and practitioners) was to:
• adapt this old technique so that it can be applied to a
biodiversity conservation problem,
• demonstrate it on a small case study.
Project Prioritisation Protocol
(1) Define objectives
(2) State constraints
(3) List biodiversity assets
(4) Weight assets
(5) List management projects
(6) Calculate the costs of each project
(7) Predict the benefit to assets
(8) Estimate likelihood of success
(9) Rank projects
Project Prioritisation Protocol
Project
Cost
C
Benefit
B
Success
S
Weight
W
(1) State objective
Clear, measurable and achievable objective:
“To secure (over a period of 50 years) the
greatest number of threatened species of value
with the Threatened Species Budget.”
Secure = a viable population that is stable and will allow future
recovery
Value = biological, economic and/or social values (see Step 4)
Threatened Species budget = see Step 2
(2) State constraints
National TS Budget* = NZ$33
million/year
* Budget that is earmarked for conservation of biodiversity. Does
not include the budgets for Iconic Species (e.g. Kiwis),
Ecosystems, Recreation, or Community Outreach
Programmes
(3) List biodiversity assets
Species listed as the following on
New Zealand’s threatened species
list:
• nationally critical (NC)
• nationally endangered (NE)
• nationally vulnerable (NV)
• serious decline (SD)
(3) List biodiversity assets
Project
North Island
brown kiwi
Robust
grasshopper
Long-tailed bat
Maud Island frog
Canterbury
mudfish
$12,897,720
(4) Weight assets
Weight 
1
f gs
f = the number of families in the order
g = the number of genera in the family
s = the number of species in the genus
Species
f
g
s
W
North Island brown kiwi
4
1
5
0.224
Robust grasshopper
48
1402
3
0.002
Long-tailed bat
17
35
15
0.011
Maud Island frog
33
1
4
0.087
Canterbury mudfish
12
7
5
0.049
(4) Weight assets
Project
Cost
C
Benefit
B
Success
S
Weight
W
North Island
brown kiwi
0.224
Robust
grasshopper
0.002
Long-tailed bat
0.011
Maud Island frog
0.087
Canterbury
mudfish
0.049
(5) List management projects
North Island brown kiwi project
Project management
Service support
Infrastructure
Outcome monitoring
Predator control
Dog control
Community relations
(6) Calculate costs
North Island brown kiwi project
Project management
Service support
Infrastructure
Outcome monitoring
Predator control
Dog control
Community relations
Total over 50 years
$3 064 260
$612 852
$1 172 520
$391 182
$3 911 821
$766 065
$3 096 858
$12,897,720
(6) Calculate the management costs
Project
Cost
C
Benefit
B
Success
S
Weight
W
North Island
brown kiwi
$12,897,720
0.224
Robust
grasshopper
$8,412,335
0.002
$10,116,626
0.011
Maud Island frog
$2,076,132
0.087
Canterbury
mudfish
$1,400,653
0.049
Long-tailed bat
(7) Predict the benefit to assets
Benefit  Pa  P0
Pa = the probability of security with the management project
P0 = the probability of security without management
Species
Pa
P0
B
North Island brown kiwi
0.95
0.00
0.95
Robust grasshopper
0.95
0.05
0.90
Long-tailed bat
0.95
0.00
0.95
Maud Island frog
0.95
0.25
0.70
Canterbury mudfish
0.95
0.00
0.95
(7) Predict the benefit to assets
Project
Cost
C
Benefit
B
Success
S
Weight
W
North Island
brown kiwi
$12,897,720
0.95
0.224
Robust
grasshopper
$8,412,335
0.90
0.002
$10,116,626
0.95
0.011
Maud Island frog
$2,076,132
0.70
0.087
Canterbury
mudfish
$1,400,653
0.95
0.049
Long-tailed bat
(8) Estimate likelihood of success
Species
North Island brown kiwi
S
1
Robust grasshopper
0.05
Long-tailed bat
0.21
Maud Island frog
Canterbury mudfish
1
0.16
(8) Estimate likelihood of success
Project
Cost
C
Benefit
B
Success
S
Weight
W
North Island
brown kiwi
$12,897,720
0.95
1.00
0.224
Robust
grasshopper
$8,412,335
0.90
0.05
0.002
$10,116,626
0.95
0.21
0.011
Maud Island frog
$2,076,132
0.70
1.00
0.087
Canterbury
mudfish
$1,400,653
0.95
0.16
0.049
Long-tailed bat
(9) Rank projects
Project
W B S

Efficiency
C
B = Benefits of the project
S = Probability of success of project
C = Project costs
W = Species value
(9) Rank projects
Project
Cost
C
Benefit
B
Success
S
Weight
W B S
PE 
C
W
North Island
brown kiwi
$12,897,720
0.95
1.00
0.224
16470
Robust
grasshopper
$8,412,335
0.90
0.05
0.002
13
$10,116,626
0.95
0.21
0.011
204
Maud Island frog
$2,076,132
0.70
1.00
0.087
29346
Canterbury
mudfish
$1,400,653
0.95
0.16
0.049
5361
Long-tailed bat
(9) Rank projects
Project
2
5
4
1
3
Cost
C
Benefit
B
Success
S
Weight
W B S
PE 
C
W
North Island
brown kiwi
$12,897,720
0.95
1.00
0.224
16470
Robust
grasshopper
$8,412,335
0.90
0.05
0.002
13
$10,116,626
0.95
0.21
0.011
204
Maud Island frog
$2,076,132
0.70
1.00
0.087
29346
Canterbury
mudfish
$1,400,653
0.95
0.16
0.049
5361
Long-tailed bat
Expected number of species that are secure
12
Weighted Efficiency metric
PE_D
Expected number of species secured
.
Unweighted
Efficiency metric
PE_0
Cost
10
Distinctiveness
Threat
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Budget (x $1,000,000)
60
70
80
The Science...
Joseph, L. N., R. F. Maloney, and H. P. Possingham (2009) Optimal allocation of resources among
threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conservation Biology 23:328-338.
Conservation in New Zealand
Department of Conservation (DOC)
 1/3 of NZ land area
 Twice size of Israel
 1500 staff
 46 local offices, 12 regions
What DOC does
• Not just biodiversity
Ecosystems and species
Recreation
Historic
Engagement with communities
Business opportunities
• Annual budget for ecosystems and species
~$100 million US
Approaches to conservation
Ad hoc approaches by local managers
• lack of clear and agreed objectives
• not transparent
• not consistent
Some scientific/technical tools developed
• no organisational buy-in
• no uptake of identified priorities
Pathways followed to date
Objective
Understand
technical constraints
Understand
organisational
constraints
Develop an “ideal”
technical solution
Develop an “ideal”
organisational
solution
Limited resolution of
organisational
constraints
Wrong biodiversity
priorities addressed
No uptake of priority
work
No uptake of priority
work
Pathway to uptake
Objective
Understand
technical constraints
Understand
organisational
constraints
Develop an “ideal”
technical solution
Develop a technical
solution that best
addresses organisational
constraints
Develop an “ideal”
organisational
solution
Limited resolution of
organisational
constraints
Address organisational
constraints
Wrong biodiversity
priorities addressed
No uptake of priority
work
Strong uptake of some
priority work
No uptake of priority
work
New approach
• Prioritise all biodiversity work for DOC
• 680 threatened species, 150 ecosystem
types
• Ensure uptake of national priority work by
local practitioners
How have we done this?
• Engage/collaborate with scientists
• Use of translator roles
• Clear agreed objectives
• Achieve ownership with practitioners
• Address work-planning process and changes
Collaborate with scientists
• Gain trust via peer-reviewed publications
• Provide advice and problem-solving
• Makes science relevant
Translator roles
• Understand technical tools and detail
• Understand organisational and
management structure
• Understand business processes
• Communication/people skills
• Buy-in from scientists, local practitioners
and senior decision-makers
DOC’s biodiversity objectives
IO1
The diversity of New
Zealand’s natural heritage is
maintained and restored
1.1
A full range of New
Zealand’s
ecosystems is
conserved to a
healthy functioning
state
1.2
Nationally
threatened species
are conserved to
ensure persistence
Species
1.3
Nationally iconic
ecosystems,
landforms and
landscapes are
improved
1.4
Nationally iconic
species have
populations
improved
1.5
Locally treasured
natural heritage is
improved
3 social value objectives
Selected ecosystem services will be measured and reported for these objectives
Ecosystems
1.6
Public
conservation
lands, waters and
species are held
Achieve ownership
• Expert-driven process
• 150 workshops
• over 200 species and ecosystem experts
• all data checked and validated by local staff in
60 meetings throughout the country
Work-planning processes
• Changes to financial and business planning
systems made
• Projects / work plans produced
Summary
• 680 national threatened species projects and
150 ecosystem management projects built and
prioritised by October 2010
• In July 2010 first species projects underway
• Full transition to priority work will occur over
the next 3 years
• Small core team to do this: 6 people over 3
years
• Same resource, at least twice the outcomes for
conservation