Liana JosephApplied Environmental Decision Analysis Research FacilityUniversity of Queensland

Belinda MellishDepartment of Conservation, New Zealand

Richard MaloneyDepartment of Conservation, New Zealand

Hugh PossinghamApplied Environmental Decision Analysis Research FacilityUniversity of Queensland

Prioritising management for conservation in New Zealand: from science to practice

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.

(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

ProjectCostC

BenefitB

SuccessS

WeightW

Project Prioritisation Protocol

(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

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

(2) State constraints

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

$12,897,720

Robust grasshopper

Long-tailed bat

Maud Island frog

Canterbury mudfish

(3) List biodiversity assets

(4) Weight assets

f = the number of families in the orderg = the number of genera in the familys = the number of species in the genus

sgf

1Weight

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

ProjectCostC

BenefitB

SuccessS

WeightW

North Island brown kiwi 0.224

Robust grasshopper 0.002

Long-tailed bat 0.011

Maud Island frog 0.087

Canterbury mudfish 0.049

(4) Weight assets

(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 $3 064 260

Service support $612 852

Infrastructure $1 172 520

Outcome monitoring $391 182

Predator control $3 911 821

Dog control $766 065

Community relations $3 096 858

Total over 50 years $12,897,720

ProjectCostC

BenefitB

SuccessS

WeightW

North Island brown kiwi

$12,897,720 0.224

Robust grasshopper

$8,412,335 0.002

Long-tailed bat $10,116,626 0.011

Maud Island frog $2,076,132 0.087

Canterbury mudfish

$1,400,653 0.049

(6) Calculate the management costs

(7) Predict the benefit to assets

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

Pa = the probability of security with the management project P0 = the probability of security without management

0Benefit PPa

ProjectCostC

BenefitB

SuccessS

WeightW

North Island brown kiwi

$12,897,720 0.95 0.224

Robust grasshopper

$8,412,335 0.90 0.002

Long-tailed bat $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

(7) Predict the benefit to assets

(8) Estimate likelihood of success

Species S

North Island brown kiwi 1

Robust grasshopper 0.05

Long-tailed bat 0.21

Maud Island frog 1

Canterbury mudfish 0.16

ProjectCostC

BenefitB

SuccessS

WeightW

North Island brown kiwi

$12,897,720 0.95 1.00 0.224

Robust grasshopper

$8,412,335 0.90 0.05 0.002

Long-tailed bat $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

(8) Estimate likelihood of success

B = Benefits of the projectS = Probability of success of projectC = Project costsW = Species value

CSBW

ProjectEfficiency

(9) Rank projects

ProjectCostC

BenefitB

SuccessS

WeightW

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

Long-tailed bat $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

CSBW

PE

(9) Rank projects

ProjectCostC

BenefitB

SuccessS

WeightW

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

Long-tailed bat $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

CSBW

PE

33

4411

5522

(9) Rank projects

Expected number of species that are secure

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Budget (x $1,000,000)

Exp

ecte

d nu

mbe

r of

spe

cies

sec

ured

PE_D

PE_0

Cost

Distinctiveness

Threat

.Unweighted Efficiency metric

Weighted Efficiency metric

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.

The Science...

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 speciesRecreationHistoricEngagement with communitiesBusiness 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

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

Pathways followed to date

Pathway to uptake

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

Develop a technical solution that best

addresses organisational constraints

Address organisational constraints

Strong uptake of some priority work

• Prioritise all biodiversity work for DOC

• 680 threatened species, 150 ecosystem

types

• Ensure uptake of national priority work by

local practitioners

New approach

• Engage/collaborate with scientists

• Use of translator roles

• Clear agreed objectives

• Achieve ownership with practitioners

• Address work-planning process and changes

How have we done this?

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

IO1The diversity of New

Zealand’s natural heritage is maintained and restored

1.3Nationally iconic

ecosystems, landforms and landscapes are

improved

1.1A full range of New

Zealand’s ecosystems is conserved to a

healthy functioning state

1.2Nationally

threatened species are conserved to

ensure persistence

1.4Nationally iconic

species have populations improved

1.5 Locally treasured natural heritage is

improved

Selected ecosystem services will be measured and reported for these objectives

1.6Public

conservation lands, waters and species are held

DOC’s biodiversity objectives

Ecosystems

Species3 social value objectives

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