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 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 gs 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