* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Are we Delivering Indigenous Biodiversity Conservation Outcomes
Survey
Document related concepts
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Sacred natural site wikipedia , lookup
Private landowner assistance program wikipedia , lookup
Index of environmental articles wikipedia , lookup
Marine conservation wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity wikipedia , lookup
Conservation agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Conservation biology wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Are we Delivering Indigenous Biodiversity Conservation Outcomes in the Best Possible Way? David A. Norton & C. Hamish Cochrane1, University of Canterbury, Christchurch. Introduction Indigenous biodiversity, or natural heritage, is widely seen as a key asset for New Zealand. In their advice to the incoming Minister of Conservation, the Department of Conservation highlighted the importance of natural heritage in three areas (DoC 1999). They suggested that natural heritage is an inseparable part of our sense of identity, as providing a range of essential services including clean water and carbon storage, and as a major source of wealth through tourism, our single largest export earner. However, ongoing declines in the abundance of indigenous species and in ecosystem health (MfE 1997) raise questions about the systems and structures we have in place for delivering natural heritage conservation outcomes. It is increasingly being suggested that insufficient resources are available to address indigenous biodiversity decline. The Draft New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (Anon 1998), for example, has highlighted the need for substantial additional financial resources to be made available if we are to reverse the declines that are occurring in New Zealand. As the conservation of indigenous biodiversity is generally seen as a public good it is primarily funded by the taxpayer through various central government funding allocations (primarily through Vote Conservation). However, indigenous biodiversity is not restricted to public lands and there is often tension between private landowners and those advocating for natural heritage on these lands. The Draft New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (Anon 1998) has identified biodiversity conservation on private land as a key concern if we are to properly address biodiversity issues in New Zealand. Given that funding for biodiversity conservation is limited and that this conservation must focus on all land tenures, it is important to ask if the present structures for delivering biodiversity outcomes are able to provide us with the desired returns for our conservation investment? We believe that the answer is no and in this article outline an alternative approach that we believe might better provide biodiversity outcomes for New Zealand, especially with respect to the goals outlined in the Draft New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. Successful biodiversity conservation is of course not only concerned with the delivery of outputs. The effectiveness of outcome delivery (supply) is very much dependent on the nature of the demand side of the system. So before discussing biodiversity delivery, we first review some recent studies on the value of biodiversity. Valuing biodiversity The importance of properly valuing biodiversity has received considerable recent attention. Costanza et al. (1997) estimated that the total global value of biodiversity (which they termed ecosystem functions and services) ranged from US$1654 trillion (1012) per year compared to a 22 Victoria Economic Commentaries / March 2000 global gross national product total of around US$18 trillion (all 1994 dollars). They defined ecosystem functions to include both the habitat, biological or system properties or processes of ecosystems, and ecosystem goods (e.g., food) and services (e.g., waste assimilation) as the benefits that human populations derive from ecosystem function. They suggest that because ecosystem functions and services contribute directly or indirectly to human welfare, they therefore represent part of the total economic value of the planet. Patterson and Cole (1999) have undertaken a similar assessment for New Zealand where they estimated the total economic value from New Zealand’s land biodiversity as NZ$44 billion (1994 dollars) and suggested that the value for marine biodiversity would be higher. Their value estimate included direct use value (e.g., commercial food production and forestry), indirect use value (e.g., erosion control and climate regulation) and passive value (e.g., the willingness to pay for the protection of national parks). In comparison, New Zealand’s gross domestic product was NZ$84 billion in 1994. While there is considerable debate about the actual value that biodiversity has, it is clear from both these studies that the value of biodiversity is comparable to gross domestic product and that biodiversity provides an important portion of the total contribution to human welfare on this planet. Costanza et al. (1997) suggest that because such value is largely outside the market and uncertain, it is too often ignored or undervalued. Because of these uncertainties, the costs and benefits of different conservation actions have often been difficult to quantify. Stephens (1999) and Cullen et al. (1999) have, however, recently presented methods for quantifying conservation achievements and for prioritising between different conservation actions in the New Zealand context. Stephens (1999) suggests that an absence of methods and systems to measure the state of New Zealand’s biodiversity contributes to the poor visibility of returns on society’s investment in conservation, and also to doubt about the quality of expenditure. He outlines a utility index based on project return, urgency and feasibility as a means to prioritise different conservation actions. In contrast Cullen et al. (1999) use an output measure called Conservation Output Protection Years (COPY) as a means for evaluating the success of different biodiversity protection projects. Both these approaches introduce a new degree of rigor into the assessment of conservation actions. But both approaches are dependent on the correct system being in place to deliver conservation outcomes. The rest of this article considers the systems for the delivery of these outcomes. Biodiversity conservation in New Zealand today Conservation of indigenous biodiversity in New Zealand is covered by a number of Parliamentary acts including the Wildlife Act 1953, Wild Animal Control Act 1977, Reserves Act 1977, National Parks Act 1980, Conservation Act 1987, Resource Management Act 1991, Forests Amendment Act 1993 and Biosecurity Act 1993. Policy development falls across several government agencies, although most is done by the Department of Conservation, Ministry for the Environment, Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of Fisheries, and Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (Fig. 1). Delivery of biodiversity outcomes is also spread between several agencies including the Department of Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, local government (both regional and city/district councils), research institutes (universities and crown research institutes), as well as many NGO, community and iwi groups (Fig. 1). Indigenous biodiversity conservation has usually been seen as the responsibility of the state and as something that usually occurs on public land (e.g., national parks and reserves), although some legislation also Victoria Economic Commentaries / March 2000 23 covers indigenous species on private land (Wildlife Act 1953 and the rarely used Native Plants Protection Act 1934). There has, however, been a shift in the way biodiversity conservation is viewed in New Zealand with recent legislation recognising the importance of indigenous biodiversity on private land. For example, the Resource Management Act 1991 requires local authorities to provide for the protection of “significant areas of indigenous vegetation and significant habitat for indigenous fauna” (Section 6(c)) on all lands within their administrative boundaries. The Forests Amendment Act 1993, which prescribes the way private indigenous forests can be managed, defines sustainable forest management as “the management of an area of forest land in a way that maintains the ability of the forest growing on that land to continue to provide a full range of products and amenities in perpetuity while retaining the forest’s natural value” (Section 2). The Draft New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (Anon 1998) is perhaps the most recent statement on the value of indigenous biodiversity on private land. This strategy highlights the importance of the conservation of this biodiversity and suggests that if we are to stabilise or even reverse the decline that has occurred in New Zealand’s indigenous species then we need to focus on private lands as well as on public lands as biodiversity issues occur across all land tenures. The advice of both the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for the Environment to their incoming Ministers reinforces the importance of biodiversity conservation on private land (DoC 1999), (MfE 1999). However, as the Ministry for the Environment report highlights, rural landowners are concerned that requirements to protect biodiversity on private land will threaten their property rights. Draw backs in the present delivery of biodiversity conservation We see three major flaws in the way we presently deliver indigenous biodiversity outcomes in New Zealand. These flaws reflect the systems that are in place not the people who work within them who are typically very hardworking and committed to meeting biodiversity conservation goals. (1) Indigenous biodiversity policy development is primarily split between two government agencies, the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for the Environment. In general this split is between conservation issues on public and private land. However, as our emphasis on indigenous biodiversity conservation in New Zealand evolves towards one that sees both public and private land as important, it seems illogical to maintain this distinction in policy formulation. In fact this distinction could lead to poor coordination of policy development and ultimately to a poor return in conservation delivery for our investment. (2) The Department of Conservation has a mixture of roles including policy, planning, contract management and conservation delivery. It can also advocate for conservation values on lands it does not manage. It has been suggested that the Department is under resourced to carry out these diverse tasks. Certainly staff have to deal with a wide range of competing tasks under often very-short time-frames and as a result not all jobs are completed equally well. The post-Cave Creek reforms in the Department have addressed some of these issues, especially through separating delivery and planning functions in Area Offices, but the reality is that the relatively small number of staff in the Department must deal with a wide range of issues. This situation has 24 Victoria Economic Commentaries / March 2000 several consequences, the most important being that we are almost certainly obtaining a lower return on our investment in conservation than perhaps we could. (3) Our third concern lies with the planning for and delivery of biodiversity conservation on private land as envisaged in the Draft New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. The Department of Conservation is not well liked or trusted by many private land owners in rural New Zealand, especially farmers, and would not seem the appropriate organisation to do this. The Ministry for the Environment is a policy agency and is not in a position to deliver conservation outcomes. While local authorities, and many non-government groups, can do this, there is still a need for a central government agency to maintain oversight and to distribute funds. An alternative model for biodiversity conservation One model for addressing these concerns separates policy, funding and delivery roles with respect to indigenous biodiversity conservation (Fig. 2) and focuses the activities of the Department of Conservation on planning and contract management, while outsourcing delivery to contractors. We suggest combining indigenous biodiversity policy activities from the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for the Environment, and where appropriate from other central government agencies, into one policy unit (perhaps called ‘Natural Heritage Conservation New Zealand’). This should have substantial benefits by providing for co-ordinated biodiversity policy development in New Zealand, especially between public and private land. This policy unit should cover other environmental issues as well as biodiversity conservation (e.g., pollution and sustainable resource use). The Department of Conservation’s Head Office would still retain some policy functions, but these would relate to operational matters (e.g., development of systems for classifying threatened species) rather than national policy. At present, funding for biodiversity conservation is allocated from Government to the Department of Conservation through Vote Conservation. Other funds used for biodiversity conservation are allocated through other channels (e.g., Vote Environment funds the sustainable management fund which helps support many local conservation initiatives). With the proposal to provide additional funding for biodiversity conservation (including implementation on private land) we suggest that there is considerable merit in establishing a stand-alone funding organisation that acts as a central clearing house for all government biodiversity (and other environmental) funding. This organisation would allocate funding in accordance with government policy to all agencies involved in delivering biodiversity conservation outcomes including the Department of Conservation. This model is very similar to that used for science and research where the Ministry for Research, Science and Technology develops policy, the Foundation for Research Science and Technology allocates government funding, while a range of organisations including Crown Research Institutes and universities deliver outcomes. Finally, we believe that the Department of Conservation would be better able to deliver conservation outcomes if it focused on planning and contract management while out-sourcing most of the actual delivery work. This system has many benefits over the current model as it enables the Department of Conservation to focus much better on planning and especially on monitoring or ranging. By not having to spend time on actual delivery, Department Victoria Economic Commentaries / March 2000 25 of Conservation field staff should be able to “better know their patch” and thus be able to identify problems/issues before they arise and be effective in auditing the results of contractors work. By contracting work out there is also the opportunity to develop more focused skills in areas like pest control and threatened species management at a lower cost (because of reduced overheads). This should occur without staff also having to be involved in the many other tasks that Department of Conservation staff are presently involved in. Because biodiversity conservation is a public good, it is essential that there is strong community involvement in all aspects of this. We suggest that this public input should occur at two levels. While the electoral system provides some public input into general government policy, the new Wellington based policy unit could benefit from an appointed ‘Board’ comprising suitably qualified and experienced people. The New Zealand Conservation Authority provides some degree of public input into policy development within the Department of Conservation Head office. However, the new group should have a more formal role to work with key staff in policy development. Secondly we suggest that there is a need to continue with the present conservancy based Conservation Boards as these enable the local community of interest to be directly involved in regional level conservation planning (as presently occurs through the Conservation Management Strategy process). Community Boards have the potential to play a similar role for biodiversity conservation work within the jurisdiction of local authorities. Our model sees local government playing an important role in indigenous biodiversity conservation delivery on private land. However, many local authorities do not have, nor can they afford to have, the necessary technical expertise for managing this (especially ecological expertise). It may be that one component of the additional private land biodiversity conservation funding highlighted in the draft Biodiversity Strategy should be directed towards enabling local authorities to purchase this expertise. However, to use these limited resources efficiently adjacent local authorities may need to look at pooling resources and sharing such expertise. Conclusions Our focus in this article is in looking at ways to provide a better biodiversity outcome for New Zealand given the limited resources available for this work. Our comments have been made recognising the outstanding work that is already taking place in this area but also recognising that despite this the decline in indigenous species is ongoing. It therefore seems essential to us that we look critically at the way we deliver conservation outcomes and consider other approaches that might differ from the currently accepted model. This is not to say that our suggested approach is the only one, rather we offer it as a contribution to debate on this matter. There are a number of other issues that we have not discussed that also require some consideration. For example, the Department of Conservation also has functions under the Conservation Act and Historic Places Act to manage use of the public conservation lands and historic resources. While our comments have focused on indigenous biodiversity, it would seem likely that similar comments would also apply to these areas. We have also not discussed issues of co-management and the implications of recently settled and pending Treaty of Waitangi claims, but the results of these should not affect the basic manner in which government achieves its indigenous biodiversity conservation outcomes although some of the players may change. VEC 26 Victoria Economic Commentaries / March 2000 REFERENCES Anon. 1998. New Zealand's Biodiversity Strategy, draft. Department of Conservation and Ministry for the Environment, Wellington. Costanza, R. et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260. Cullen, R., G. A. Fairburn, and K. F. D. Hughey. 1999. COPY: a new technique for evaluation of biodiversity protection projects. Pacific Conservation Biology 5: 115-123. DoC. 1999. A Briefing for the New Minister of Conservation. Department of Conservation, Wellington. MfE. 1997. The State of New Zealand's Environment. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington. MfE. 1999. Briefing for the Incoming Government. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington. Patterson, M. and A. Cole. 1999. Assessing the Value of New Zealand’s Biodiversity. Occasional Paper Number 1, School of Resource and Environmental Planning, Massey University, Palmerston North. Stephens, T. 1999. Measuring conservation achievement. Pages 13-39 in P. M. Blaschke and K. Green, eds. Biodiversity now! Department of Conservation, Wellington. FOOTNOTE 1. David A Norton and C. Hamish Cochrane are from the Conservation Research Group, School of Forestry, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch. Victoria Economic Commentaries / March 2000 27 28 Victoria Economic Commentaries / March 2000 Victoria Economic Commentaries / March 2000 29 Figure 1. Summary of current structures for biodiversity conservation delivery in New Zealand Central Government POLICY DELIVERY Ministry for the Environment Department of Conservation Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry Local government Victoria Economic Commentaries / March 2000 31 Figure 2. A possible revised structure for biodiversity conservation delivery in New Zealand. Central Government Policy Policy MRST ‘Natural Heritage Conservation NZ’ Funding Funding FRST ‘Foundation for Natural Heritage Research Providers 32 Victoria Economic Commentaries / March 2000 Local Government Othe Governm agenci Service Providers Com (inclu Footnote: 1 David A. Norton & C. Hamish Cochrane, Conservation Research Group School of Forestry,University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch. Victoria Economic Commentaries / March 2000 33