Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Prioritising DOC’s ecosystem and species management John Leathwick Shared Services Centre, Department of Conservation, Hamilton Roadmap… • The context • Prioritizing ecosystems • Adding species • The implementation challenge Broad goals… • Tied to the NZ Biodiversity Strategy – Under UN Convention on Biological Diversity – Bipartisan both in authorship and political support – Providing stable policy direction • Goal 3 – work beyond reservation – Maintain and restore a full range of remaining ecosystems to a healthy functioning state – Maintain and restore populations of all indigenous species and subspecies • Incorporated in DOC’s statement of intent Reviewed in 2005… • Some progress but – Insufficient evidence of ‘turning the tide’ – Lack of systematic monitoring • Called for – “an overarching framework or model that defines more explicit targets related to sustaining representative examples of the full range of ecosystems” • Generally smart about ‘how to do’ – Less so about ‘where to do it…’ A new set of tools… • Systematic conservation planning – Approaches to maximising conservation outcomes under constrained resources • Margules & Pressey (Nature, 2000) • Initial focussed on reserve selection – Which sites should we protect? • Increasing sophistication/practicality – Focus shifting to ‘What should we manage?” The Department’s journey… • Initially a conceptual focus – Regional trials of tools to prioritise projects • Species focussed work – A bespoke ‘cut-down’ model – Focussed on species coverage and institutional uptake • Our current approach – Based more around off-the-shelf tools – Explicit integration of ecosystem and species strands Roadmap… • The context • Prioritizing ecosystems • Adding species • The implementation challenge Our conservation heritage… • A wealth of understanding – 1970s – Nicholls – Ecological Area network – NZFS – Kelly – Botany Division – DSIR – Mirrored in subsequent international writings • E.g., Christenson et al.’s ESA review • Manage a network of large sites – Sequences of related ecosystems – Collectively representing the full range Representative ecosystems… • Requires a catalogue – No universally accepted national classification – Limited mapping of ecosystem patterns • ‘Representativeness’ – New Zealand’s definition focused on single sites • Internationally… – The ability of a group of sites to collectively represent the biodiversity values of a broader landscape Representativeness… • A team selection problem – Requires a range of skills • Next player selected depends on – Those already in the team • Early approaches based on scoring – Assess individual site values and then sort in order • Doesn’t work! – Requires an iterative selection process • Site value is updated as selection proceeds Implementation… • A set of around 1000 Ecosystem Management Units (EMUs) – Range in size 1–30,000 ha – average = 3500 ha – Cover around 30% of Public Conservation Land • Some land of other tenures • Ecosystems described using – A synthesis of published vegetation community descriptions • Singers & Rogers – Organised within a bioclimatic framework Our aim… • “A healthy functioning state” – Normal structure, composition and function • Threats are mostly imported – Browsers, predators, weeds – Humans – dogs, 4WDs, rubbish, clearance, • Model relating – Ecological integrity to pressures – Threat impacts vary across ecosystems, e.g., • Possums more damaging in broadleaved forests • Wilding pines more damaging in tussock grasslands Management actions… • Designed to reduce – Impacts of a full range of significant threats • Leibeg’s law of the minimum – Some threats remain technically difficult • E.g., mice in mainland sites, water quality issues • Prescriptions developed by operations staff – Those implementing are best qualified to design – Supported by independent moderation and peer review Typical spatial data… Multi-stage prioritisation… • Ranks sites in order – Primarily based on their ability to achieve representation of a full range of ecosystems • Best-condition examples • Rankings then fine tuned – Collateral benefits for threatened species – Protecting existing management gains – Cost effectiveness • All added with controlled influence • Implemented in ‘Zonation’ – Developed by Atte Moilanen, University of Helsinki A stepwise analysis… Step one Z initial analysis Ecosystem layers + condition layer Assess group representation in R Adjust wts in layer list and re -run Z Step two Step three Step four Z – add species Z – add mgmt. loss/gain Z – add costs Repeats with species weights of 0.1, 0.2…0.5 Repeats with retention weights of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 Repeat with cost transformed to varying degrees Assess ecosystem representation versus species Assess ecosystem representation versus difference made Assess ecosystem representation versus cost Typical priorities… Top 400 sites… • Contain 30% of EMUs by area – Include examples of a full range of ecosystems – Operational costs of $19m to manage • Analysis process delivers – 13% increase in threatened species coverage – Higher priority for existing good condition sites • e.g., Moehau, Te Urewera – 19% reduction in costs for top 30% of sites • Allows expansion of work by nearly 25% Roadmap… • The context • Prioritizing ecosystems • Adding species • The implementation challenge Adding species to the mix… • In an ideal world… – Assemble ecosystem and species layers – Identify management actions and costs for each – Prioritise to identify optimal set of sites and actions to implement… • The reality… – Computationally beyond our reach at present – Difficult to assign cost and benefit – Species vary widely in their overlaps with ecosystems and each other DOC’s history… • Run independently – Up until eighteen months ago – Increasing disquiet about duplication of effort • E.g., Kauri & kiwi at Waipoua & Trounson • Trialled the addition of species info – Assessed both the ecosystems and species occurring within EMUs – Substantial gains for many species at no cost • Although some will still require additional work Two-stage prioritisation… • Ecosystems work prioritised first – Managing a representative range of ecosystems an efficient way to protect many species • The fence at the top of the cliff… • Species work prioritised second – Where possible, manage at sites already receiving ecosystem management – Identify their additional management requirements • The ambulance at the bottom of the cliff… Two parallel strands… Species strand Ecosystem strand Ecosystem spatial data management units 1 or more ecosystems Partially overlapping units Species spatial data management sites 1 or more species Zonation analysis to maximise ecosystem representation Zonation analysis to maximise species representation Adjust rankings using species information Adjust rankings using ecosystem ecosystem information rankings Adjust rankings using current condition ‘difference made’ estimates estimates Adjust rankings using current achievement ‘difference made’ estimates estimates Adjust rankings using cost estimates Adjust rankings using cost estimates Aligned with threat listing… • Regular review of species status – Experts for taxonomic groups – Assemble a wealth of additional information • Population trends, distributions, etc. • Focus management on species – Under a high level of threat – Confident of the feasibility of management • For other species… – Monitoring, distributional survey, taxonomic review or investigate causes of decline The process… • Overlay distributions onto EMUs – Or identify additional sites where required • Build species prescriptions – Additional work for all threatened species present • Additional in kind or intensity • Prioritise EMUs for species – Sites where joint ecosystem and species work delivers maximum gains • Or new sites where species management is required independent of ecosystems work Typical species data… Roadmap… • The context • Prioritizing ecosystems • Adding species • The implementation challenge Implementation… • Potentially major gains in efficiency – Currently integrating ecosystem and species • Longer term – Manage sites for multiple benefits • Ecosystems, species, iconic, historic, recreation, etc. • Maximise people’s connection with biodiversity • Major institutional challenges – Previously high levels of local delegation – Any centralized planning is questioned • New structure will more explicitly support A well documented problem… • Shift from supply to demand-driven – Knight et al. in Moilanen et al. 2009 • Spatial Conservation Prioritization (Oxford Uni. Press) • Requires consilience – – – – The fusion of knowledge traditions (Wilson 1998) Bringing together all institutional players Clear articulation of goals, purposes and constraints Building a system that is not “yours” or “mine” • But “ours”! Overall… • A pragmatic approach to a difficult problem – Requiring a large number of tradeoffs • On-the-run with minimal time and resources for comparative testing • Achieving the Biodiversity Strategy? – Not yet – But a significant step forwards! • Provided that we can find the necessary resources