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