The next generation of metrics for multiple ecosystem ... · The next generation of metrics for multiple ecosystem conservation tenders CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems September 2010

The next generation of metrics for multiple ecosystem conservation tenders

CSIRO Sustainable EcosystemsSeptember 2010

Stuart M. Whitten, Charlie Zammit, Veronica Doerr, Erik Doerr, Emma Burns, Simon Attwood and Art Langston

CSIRO Conservation Tenders: Recent lessons from Australia Dr Stuart Whitten

Acknowledgements …

• Research in this presentation funded by DEWHA (now SEWPaC) and CSIRO.

• Joint team worked on project:• CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences: Stuart M. Whitten, Veronica

Doerr, Erik Doerr, Art Langston• SEWPaC: Charlie Zammit, Emma Burns, Simon Attwood• Team also involved Anton Wood (CSIRO – SEWPac) and

Fiona Dickson (SEWPaC).

• Some professional jargon in presentation – please feel free to ask for clarification.


Errors and Omissions…


Outline of presentation …

1. Auctions and tenders • Metric context • Performance requirements from a metric

2. A new metric form • Improved consideration of ecological dynamics;• Systematic consideration of management interventions; • On-farm management interventions AND the agricultural

matrix surrounding the remnant vegetation; and• Attention to practical implementation considerations.

3. Concluding comments • Advantages of new approach and further knowledge needs


What are conservation tenders?

• A tool for purchasing biodiversity outcomes from private landholders

• Cost of conservation unknown.• Likely benefits can be assessed (the metric).• Funds allocated by relative biodiversity per dollar cost.

• NRM tenders are a procurement tender for multiple goods

• In Australia usually run as a first price, sealed bid, single round, reverse auction.

• Landholders invited to tender a price for specified parcels of land and management.

• Government evaluates benefits per dollar and makes offers.


State of play in Australia• Increasing adoption - The Australian Government has

used tenders in several major programs:• Environmental Stewardship • Forest Conservation Fund• Biodiversity hotspots program

• BushTender standard government biodiversity investment scheme in Victoria

• Common but not standard elsewhere in Australia • Nature Assist in Qld, • Various CMA level schemes, • Experimentation in National MBI pilots


What the metric is …

• Critical to understand what is being bought and sold.• Difficult for commodities like biodiversity.

• Must describe the relative value of different bids• Must be confident bid with twice score is twice as valuable.

• Must adequately translate ecological relationships• Encompass the scope of management including external

impacts.

• Apply an appropriate ecological response function accounting for initial condition and time required to respond.

• Must be practical to implement (time, skill and cost).


Existing biodiversity metrics:

• Are generally based on condition indices (Habitat hectares and similar) OR multi-criteria composite indices (CRP).

• Are not consistent with economic theory:• Are not ratio scale full comparable.

• Are not calibrated to the values from ecosystem.

• Are not consistent with ecological theory:• Do not represent ecological dynamics

• Focus almost entirely on within-remnant management

• Can we reduce these concerns and maintain practicality of implementation?



Metric construction process

A 3 step process: Understand ecological dynamics; ascribe relative values; construct metric to reflect.

1. Understand ecological dynamics• Used an ecological state and transition model• Allows for non-linear progression between stable

ecological states.• Values within state may vary BUT function is closer than to

other states (i.e. condition varies stochastically within a range).

• State change represents a Step change in value.• Management requirements and success may be specific

to state.


STATE 3

Lomandra present5‐14 native herbaceous plant species, incl 1‐3 native grasses10‐49% nativeness of plant groundcover (<1m tall)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Fertilised 3‐6 times, with last application between 2005‐10 OR fertilised 4‐10 times, with last application between 1990‐2005

STATE 3


STATE 4

Lomandra present3‐4 native herbaceous plant species, 0 native grasses10‐49% nativeness of plant groundcover (<1m tall)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Fertilised > 10 times with last application between 2005‐10

STATE 4


STATE 2

Lomandra present15‐29 native herbaceous plant species, incl 4 native grasses50‐79% nativeness of plant groundcover (<1m tall)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Fertilised <3 times, with last application between 1990‐2005 OR fertilised <5‐6 times, with last application between 1965‐90

STATE 2


STATE 1

Lomandra present≥30 native herbaceous plant species, incl >5 native grasses>80% nativeness of plant groundcover (herbaceous plants and small shrubs <1m tall)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Never been fertilised, or > 40 yrs since last fertilisation

STATE 1


1

A

3

C

6

10

Light discontinuous or no grazing; possible low-intensity patch burning

Moderate grazing

Heavy grazing Heavy grazing, fertilisation

Regular cultivation Heavy grazing, fertilisation, infrequent cultivation

Iron‐grass Grassland: simplified S&TM

9

STATE 5Lomandra absent1‐2 native plant species0‐9% nativeness of plant groundcover (<1m tall)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Fertilised > 10 times with last application between 2005‐10


STATE 6No native plants (crop or sown pasture)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Fertilised > 10 times with last application between 2005‐10




2. Ascribe relative investment values to ecological outcomes:

• Investment value driven by ecological state.• Rank order of investment value indicated by EPBC listing:

• Listed (and sometimes sub-categories) • Recoverable• Unlisted (not eligible)

• Relative investment values were a policy decision (and are confidential).


STATE 3


STATE 3


STATE 4


STATE 4


STATE 2


STATE 2


STATE 1


STATE 1


1

A

3

C

6

10

Moderate grazing

Heavy grazing Heavy grazing, fertilisation

Regular cultivation Heavy grazing, fertilisation, infrequent cultivation

Iron‐grass Grassland: simplified S&TM

9





100 ? ? 0



3. Construct a metric that represents ecological dynamics and investment values

• Probabilistic response (change to ecological state in S&TM) dependent on starting state, threats, and management.

• Encompasses off-community management (buffers) and landscape connectivity.

• The resultant score should be ratio-scale full comparable in order to deliver unambiguous estimates of the relative values from investment.

• The S&TM simplifies this approach because we are interested in transitions between states rather than a continuous score.


Probability of a site being in a particular ecological state in

15 years

Bvalue = Site15 * A * D * S

A = Area in hectaresD = duration in years x/15S = Security (permanency)

of outcome


unmanaged threats

Go down a state(SiteI-1)

Site15


unmanaged threats


maintain current state

(SiteI)

abatement of threats

Site15


Site15

unmanaged threats


maintain current state

(SiteI)

Go up a state

(SiteI+1)

management to enhanceabatement of

threats


Site15 = SiteI-1 * (PlossAll)

+ SiteI * (1-PlossAll) * (1-PgainAll)

+ SiteI+1 * (1-PlossAll) * (PgainAll)

state loststate maintained

state improvedLoss and gain refer to response to threats and management actions.


Metric notes:

• Some threats originate from activities in the surrounding agricultural matrix (e.g. export of fertilisers and chemicals, weeds):

• These are ‘edge effects’ and may only affect part of remant.• They are abated by actions that ‘buffer’ the remnant.

• Ecological isolation can also be considered a threat:• Managed via connectivity to other remnants.

• These threats can thus be considered alongside those emanating from within the remnant.

• There are some further technical details about the metric in the paper for those interested.


Practical implementation?


Practical implementation notes:

• Major factor in conservation tenders is transaction costs and accuracy in implementation. To reduce:

1. Additional attention to eligibility and landholder understanding (difficult given tender complexity).

2. Use of S&TM means emphasis on distinguishing between states:

• Less data collected but more attention to which data gathered. Also data on threats needed.

• Rapid Assessment Protocol to guide this process.

3. Construction and use of a standard data collection tool:

• Aids in data quality control, interactive in assisting in management advice, different access for different uses.


MEC CVM Tool:


Bids soughtPrime Biodiversity

Photos: Veronica/Erik Doerr


Advantages of approach:

• Clearer link to ecological dynamics through S&TMs• Management interventions responding to threats

and opportunities to enhance ecological condition• Management success linked to ecological dynamics• Expands options to agricultural matrix surrounding

the remnant vegetation• integrates implementation with metric design


Where to next …

• 2 of many areas for further work are:• The metric is close to limit of site marginal value metrics:

• Greater emphasis on spatial coordination will required a landscape oriented metric.

• The MEC approach is limited to EPBC listed ecological communities:

• Successful biodiversity conservation will require a greater focus on multiple habitats that support meta-communities.


Contact UsPhone: 1300 363 400 or +61 3 9545 2176

Email: [email protected] Web: www.csiro.au

Thank youCSIRO Ecosystem SciencesDr Stuart Whitten Email: [email protected]

www.csiro.au/science/Markets.html

Documents

The next generation of metrics for multiple ecosystem ... · The next generation of metrics for multiple ecosystem conservation tenders CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems September 2010