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

2. The conservation problem

3. 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.

4. (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

5. Project Cost C Benefit B Success S Weight W Project Prioritisation Protocol

6. (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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Project North Island brown kiwi $12,897,720 Robust grasshopper Long-tailed bat Maud Island frog Canterbury mudfish (3) List biodiversity assets

10. (4) Weight assets 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 fgsW North Island brown kiwi415 0.224 Robust grasshopper4814023 0.002 Long-tailed bat173515 0.011 Maud Island frog3314 0.087 Canterbury mudfish1275 0.049

11. 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 (4) Weight assets

12. (5) List management projects North Island brown kiwi project Project management Service support Infrastructure Outcome monitoring Predator control Dog control Community relations

13. (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

14. 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 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

15. (7) Predict the benefit to assets SpeciesPaPa P0P0 B North Island brown kiwi0.950.000.95 Robust grasshopper0.950.050.90 Long-tailed bat0.950.000.95 Maud Island frog0.950.250.70 Canterbury mudfish0.950.000.95 P a = the probability of security with the management project P 0 = the probability of security without management

16. Project Cost C Benefit B Success S Weight W North Island brown kiwi $12,897,7200.95 0.224 Robust grasshopper $8,412,3350.90 0.002 Long-tailed bat$10,116,6260.95 0.011 Maud Island frog$2,076,1320.70 0.087 Canterbury mudfish $1,400,6530.95 0.049 (7) Predict the benefit to assets

17. (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

18. Project Cost C Benefit B Success S Weight W North Island brown kiwi $12,897,7200.95 1.00 0.224 Robust grasshopper $8,412,3350.90 0.05 0.002 Long-tailed bat$10,116,6260.95 0.21 0.011 Maud Island frog$2,076,1320.70 1.00 0.087 Canterbury mudfish $1,400,6530.95 0.16 0.049 (8) Estimate likelihood of success

19. B = Benefits of the project S = Probability of success of project C = Project costs W = Species value Project Efficiency (9) Rank projects

20. Project Cost C Benefit B Success S Weight W North Island brown kiwi $12,897,7200.95 1.00 0.22416470 Robust grasshopper $8,412,3350.90 0.05 0.00213 Long-tailed bat$10,116,6260.95 0.21 0.011204 Maud Island frog$2,076,1320.70 1.00 0.08729346 Canterbury mudfish $1,400,6530.95 0.16 0.0495361 (9) Rank projects

21. Project Cost C Benefit B Success S Weight W North Island brown kiwi $12,897,7200.95 1.00 0.22416470 Robust grasshopper $8,412,3350.90 0.05 0.00213 Long-tailed bat$10,116,6260.95 0.21 0.011204 Maud Island frog$2,076,1320.70 1.00 0.08729346 Canterbury mudfish $1,400,6530.95 0.16 0.0495361 3 4 1 5 2 (9) Rank projects

22. Expected number of species that are secure. Unweighted Efficiency metric Weighted Efficiency metric

23. 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...

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. Pathways followed to date

28. Pathway to uptake

29. Prioritise all biodiversity work for DOC 680 threatened species, 150 ecosystem types Ensure uptake of national priority work by local practitioners New approach

30. 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?

31. Collaborate with scientists Gain trust via peer-reviewed publications Provide advice and problem-solving Makes science relevant

32. 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

33. DOC’s biodiversity objectives Ecosystems Species 3 social value objectives

34. 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

35. Work-planning processes Changes to financial and business planning systems made Projects / work plans produced

36. 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