THE WINSTON CHURCHILL MEMORIAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA. Report by - James Brazill-Boast Churchill Fellow

Transcription

1 THE WINSTON CHURCHILL MEMORIAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA Report by - James Brazill-Boast Churchill Fellow To assess best practice for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of biodiversity management within international conservation organisations and determine ways to promote the value of learning in conservation (Cambridge, United Kingdom) I understand that the Churchill Trust may publish this Report, either in hard copy or on the internet or both, and consent to such publication. I indemnify the Churchill Trust against any loss, costs or damages it may suffer arising out of any claim or proceedings made against the Trust in respect of or arising out of the publication of any Report submitted to the Trust and which the Trust places on a website for access over the internet. I also warrant that my Final Report is original and does not infringe the copyright of any person, or contain anything which is, or the incorporation of which into the Final Report is, actionable for defamation, a breach of any privacy law or obligation, breach of confidence, contempt of court, passing-off or contravention of any other private right or of any law. Signed James Brazill-Boast Dated 05/04/13

2 1

3 Index Introduction...3 Executive Summary...4 Programme...5 Background...6 How do conservation organisations value monitoring and evaluation?...7 Learning: an unaffordable luxury?...7 A culture shift...7 An innovative tool for evaluating outcomes...8 A model program...10 How can the value of learning be quantified?...12 Vultures and cows in the subcontinent...12 Fox control; bang for your buck?...13 Modeling cost-effectiveness for conservation...14 The Conservation Evidence Project...16 References...18 Conclusions and Recommendations...19 Disseminating findings

4 Introduction The NSW government s redevelopment of the Threatened Species Priorities Action Statement provided an excellent opportunity to learn from the international conservation community and apply this learning to a new framework for managing threatened species in NSW. Historically, for many government environment agencies and conservation organisations, monitoring the outcomes and evaluating the effectiveness of conservation management has been regarded as lower priority for investment than the ongoing implementation of active interventions. This attitude generally comes from working in the context of overwhelming pressures on biodiversity and very limited resources available with which to manage them. In this type of environment, investment in monitoring or learning that doesn t deliver immediate on-ground benefits can be perceived as wasted. The key aims of my Churchill Fellowship were to investigate how pervasive this attitude is among the international conservation community, how it affects outcomes on the ground, and what theoretical and practical tools can be used to demonstrate the biodiversity and economic benefits of learning in conservation management. Cambridge, United Kingdom, arguably the centre of the conservation world with over 50 conservation organisations based there, was the place to answer these questions. I would never have had this opportunity if it weren t for the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust. I would like to express my gratitude to the Trust, the interview panel members, and especially Andrew Leake and Meg Gilmartin for their belief in my ability and their kindness and support throughout the process. A big thank you must go to my host at the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge Professor Andrew Balmford and his friendly and welcoming research group. It proved a fantastic base from which to engage with the key players in conservation management and opened doors to meetings that I m sure would not have happened without that association. Also to all the other researchers in the Conservation Ecology group who made me feel welcome, especially Professor William Sutherland, Jessica Walsh, Dr Toby Gardner and Stephanie Prior. Also to Valerie Kapos at the UNEP-WCMC, for kindly answering an from an unknown person (rarer than you might think) and setting me on the path to this fellowship, thank you. Finally, I am indebted to a fellow Churchill Fellow and colleague at the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage; Nicolas Carlile, for taking the time to give me some valuable advice on my application and interview preparations. 3

5 Executive Summary Dr James Brazill-Boast 7 Olsson Cl, Hornsby Heights, NSW 2077 Senior Project Officer, Conservation Strategy Unit, Regional Operations Group, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage Phone (w): Phone (m): For my Churchill Fellowship I travelled to Cambridge, UK in order to better understand how conservation decision-makers value learning and what resources can be provided by the scientific community to support decisions in environmental management. The city of Cambridge was ideal as a base for this research because the Department of Zoology at the University of Cambridge (my host institution) is known as a world-leader in conservation science. The key people I engaged with in the department Prof Andrew Balmford and Prof William Sutherland are both internationally regarded in the fields of evaluating conservation effectiveness and evidenced-based conservation. The time spent in this department was extremely valuable; providing key ideas for the monitoring and evaluation framework for the NSW threatened species program, providing access to an extensive range of influential people in the international conservation community, and forming the basis for an ongoing collaboration that has led to a major research proposal and potential collaboration with an Australian University. Working with Prof Sutherland s research team and other collaborators has also led to the early stages of development of a quantitative model that will allow environmental managers to support decisions with respect to investing more in learning to improve the effectiveness of conservation interventions. While in Cambridge I met with staff from a large number of prominent international conservation organisations such as Fauna and Flora International, World Wide Fund for Nature, Birdlife International and the United Nations Environment Program World Conservation Monitoring Centre. The key knowledge gained via interaction with these organisations and their staff included: - An understanding of the challenges involved in rigorously monitoring and evaluating conservation success, especially in developing regions - The significant role that science can have in supporting conservation decisions when there are strong links between scientists and practitioners - When benchmarking the NSW threatened species program against similar programs worldwide, it was found to be ambitious, relatively fine scale and likely to be challenging to implement (but if successful, will represent a model for other government environmental agencies) Attending and presenting at the Cambridge Conservation Forum Annual Symposium also provided insight into what a well-connected conservation community can achieve. It is a model that could be (and should) be replicated in Australia. Finally, my interaction with the UK government environment agency, Natural England, and its new evaluation project for the Higher Level Stewardship program has provided a model for government-led conservation in NSW. Not only with respect to private land conservation, but as a mechanism for engaging the community in threatened species management across the state. 4

6 Programme Organisation Contact Date(s) Topic Conservation Ecology group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge Prof Andrew Balmford 13/12/12-24/1/13 Attitudes to monitoring and evaluation and the effectiveness of conservation management generally; the role of government versus non-government organisations in environmental Conservation Science group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge University of Queensland (collaborator) United Nations Environment Program World Conservation Monitoring Centre Natural England / Department of Botany, University of Cambridge Cambridge Conservation Forum Birdlife International World Wild Fund for Nature Conservation Evidence Project National Trust University of Melbourne (visiting University of Cambridge) Natural England Fauna and Flora International Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Department of Geography, University of Cambridge Jessica Walsh 14/12/12; 16/1/13 management in the UK Modelling the cost of uncertainty in decision-making by conservation managers; effectiveness of invasive species management in Australia Dr Will Probert 17/12/12 Constructing an economic model to support decisions regarding investment in learning to improve conservation effectiveness Dr Valerie Kapos; Alison Rosser 8/1/13; 14/1/13 Developing an output/outcome monitoring framework that is logistically and economically feasible Dr Peter Carey 9/1/13 The UK framework for monitoring the effectiveness of private land conservation initiatives Philine zu Ermgassen Dr Stuart Butchart; Richard Grimmett 10/1/13 Reaching a wide audience for collecting case study data on conservation management practices 11/1/13 Monitoring biodiversity outcomes for Important Bird Areas and outcome reporting for Darwin Initiative funded projects Neil Burgess 15/1/13 Monitoring and reporting project outcomes across an international conservation organisation Dr William Sutherland Dr Stuart Warrington 16/1/13 Developing a Conservation Evidence Synopsis for invasive species management in Australia 17/1/13 The framework for monitoring biodiversity outcomes at the historic Wicken Fen and for natural assets nation-wide Dr Mark Burgman 18/1/13 Methods for eliciting accurate and reliable information from conservation experts to inform decision-making Sarah Escott; Pamela Abbot Robin Loveridge; Pippa Howard Rob Sheldon; Chris Bowden; Donal McCarthy; Dr Paul Donald 22/1/13 Ensuring return on investment of government funding for threatened species management in the UK 22/1/13 Organising outcome monitoring and collating data worldwide to maximise accountability for philanthropic investment in biodiversity management 23/1/13 The value of learning in preventing extinction of bird species; Species action planning Nicholas Wilkinson 24/1/13 The effects of uncertainty on the conservation of Saola in Vietnam 5

7 Background In Australia between 1990 and 2007 more than $6.5 billion was spent by federal environmental agencies on conserving and managing biodiversity. When the National Audit Office tried to assess the outcomes from this investment, however, they found that there was insufficient information to determine whether or not there had been any significant benefits or whether any objectives had been met. This example is not exceptional and the issue is not limited to Australia or to government agencies. With the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) currently redeveloping its framework for directing the management of threatened species and ecological communities across the state, it is vital that the best possible methods for monitoring, evaluation and adaptive learning are incorporated. With the conservation demands of an ever-increasing list of threatened species (>900) regularly outstripping the supply of funds, it is important to be able to maximise efficiency and demonstrate outcomes on the ground. The only way to achieve this will be to let science guide objective and transparent decision-making. Over the past decade there has been an increasing demand from the conservation community for a more scientifically rigorous approach to environmental management (Pullin & Knight 2001; Sutherland et al 2004; Ferraro & Pattanayak 2006; Segan et al 2011). The demand has come not only from scientists, but from managers and operational staff involved in implementing conservation activity on the ground. A recent survey of conservation practitioners in Australia found that empirical evidence was deemed the most valuable source of information to guide management, but was often difficult to access (Cook et al 2012). Another response to the need for greater cost-effectiveness in conservation in Australia has been an increase in the application of prioritisation (e.g. Wilson et al 2007; Joseph et al 2008; Carwadine et al 2012). This includes OEH, where the new threatened species program (on which I have been working) will include a project prioritization based on benefit, likelihood of success and cost. Prioritisation can be an extremely useful tool for supporting decisions regarding the investment of conservation funding, however, it relies heavily on the ability of experts to predict the outcome of various interventions for comparison (Soderquist 2011), especially where empirical data are limited. The best way to increase the availability of data relevant to conservation managers is to implement Adaptive Management; this is where the implementation of conservation interventions is designed to provide feedback to managers on their relative efficacy. The cost of this type of management may be marginally more than standard (myopic) management, but this should be weighed against the benefits of gaining knowledge that could be applied now and in the future. While the costs are simple to quantify, the benefits are often not. Essentially, the key to improving the effectiveness and return-on-investment of conservation management is continual learning. Making this a priority for governments and others making decisions regarding investment in conservation requires a culture shift that will only come about if the benefits of learning can be explicitly demonstrated. Understanding how to achieve this was the key goal of my Fellowship. 6

8 How do conservation organisations value monitoring and evaluation? Learning: an unaffordable luxury? Most of the world s crucial areas for conserving biodiversity, due to both the number of rare and endemic species and the greater anthropogenic pressures, are in the tropics. Coincidentally, governments and communities in these areas are the least likely to be able to afford the costs of effective environmental management (Balmford & Whitten 2003). For many of the conservation organisations I met with, the majority of their projects were focused on species and/or habitats in tropical or subtropical areas. This primarily included large international agencies such as WWF, Fauna and Flora International, United Nations Environment Program, and Birdlife International. Generally, projects coordinated by these agencies in these particular areas (e.g. sub-sarahan Africa, East Asia and South America), were a priority due to the limited capacity of local organisations to fund conservation efforts. The implementation of conservation activity in countries and environments such as these is challenging in the best of circumstances, so the added complexity of incorporating a rigorous monitoring regime or some form of adaptive management was often deemed unrealistic. The coordinators of these types of projects that I met with were always conscious of the importance of monitoring and evaluation; however, it was simply the logistical difficulties associated with operating in some areas that prevented its implementation. Furthermore, the threats to biodiversity in many second- and third-world nations are so obvious and severe, that expending precious resources on measuring the outcome of interventions seems counterproductive. For example, in areas where dynamite fishing is removing large amounts of marine life, a reduction in the proliferation of the technique by engaging with the community could be assumed to have a significant positive impact on the marine environment. However, without measuring population sizes / trends for various fish or coral species before and after the intervention, it would be impossible to determine whether dynamite fishing was actually the critical process driving local declines (it may have been something more insidious such as chemical pollution) and whether additional remediation activities would be required to restore the habitat. Overall, for most of these international conservation organisations, it is not due to a lack of appreciation of the benefits of monitoring, evaluation and learning that they do not occur. The governments, philanthropic groups and individuals that fund these organisations want to see immediate return on their investment in the form of tangible activity on the ground (e.g. hectares of forest under preservation or number of orangutans rescued), rather than long-term returns attributable to learning. This tends to drive more doing and less evaluating of the outcomes of doing. A culture shift For the organisations I met with that focused solely or largely on conservation within the UK and Europe (the National Trust, Natural England) there seemed to be a recent increase in the institutional importance of monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management. From my discussions it became apparent that, as in Australia, conservation organisations (particularly within government) have been historically reticent to invest in learning to improve outcomes. What I found was that for these government agencies, the likelihood of conducting targeted monitoring and evaluation was related to history and circumstance more than anything else. For example, the National Trust owns several pieces of land with high conservation value across the UK, where the organisation invests significant resources into protecting and managing biodiversity. Only one 7

9 of these properties (Wicken Fen; a remnant wetland site 10km north-east of Cambridge city) however, has regular biodiversity monitoring. Stuart Warrington, the regional conservation advisor, advised me that the key driver for the more rigorous approach at this site was history. Wicken Fen has had a long association with nearby University of Cambridge and University of East Anglia, both of whom have supported biologists in undertaking surveys and monitoring at the site over its 150 year history (Charles Darwin s son was a founding board member). Shifting from this somewhat ad-hoc approach to investment in monitoring and evaluation of conservation outcomes to incorporating adaptive management as standard operating procedure will require a culture shift for environmental management agencies. From speaking to staff at these agencies (in the UK at least) the key to this culture shift is being able to demonstrate the economic as well as environmental benefits that are likely to accrue. If this is going to happen anywhere, it will happen first in countries and regions (such as the UK and Australia) that can (perceivably) afford it. An innovative tool for evaluating outcomes Two of the key people I met with during my Fellowship and discussed the challenges and benefits of monitoring and evaluating conservation management, were Professor Andrew Balmford from the University of Cambridge and Dr Valerie Kapos from the United Nations World Conservation Monitoring Centre. In 2008 Professor Balmford and Dr Kapos along with several other collaborators and 17 member organisations of the Cambridge Conservation Forum (an association of conservation organisations, government and non-government environmental agencies and research bodies in and around Cambridge), using a grant from the MacArthur Foundation, developed a conservation evaluation tool (Kapos et al 2008). The tool is based on a simple logic framework that links inputs (activity / expenditure) to outputs (e.g. hectares of reservation) to outcomes (improvement in species / environment condition) (Figure 1). The tool itself comprises a set of targeted questions for conservation managers that are designed to elicit information that is crucial in evaluating a project s outcomes or success (Figure 2). The series of questionnaires are clear, interpretable and accessible to all conservation practitioners in a simple spreadsheet format. The tool is also comprehensive, covering all likely aspects of conservation activity including; - threats - species management - site management - livelihood enhancements and alternatives - policy and legislation - capacity building - education and awareness raising - research The CCF evaluation tool and the underpinning framework provided extremely valuable resources when developing a logic on which to base the NSW threatened species monitoring and evaluation structure. 8

10 Problem identification/ analysis Engagement with stakeholders Design of management interventions Implementation of management interventions Improved Understanding Improved compensatory responses of conservation target Reduced pressures on conservation target(s) Conservation Impact = improved status of spp (ecosystem, landscape) Figure 1: CCF evaluation tool conceptual model for site-management. From CCF Conservation Measures of Success ( 9

11 Figure 2: Screen shot from the CCF evaluation tool (Microsoft Excel Site Management questionnaire). From CCF Conservation Measures of Success ( A model program One example of a government program that has recognised the importance of monitoring and evaluating outcomes, and represents an excellent model for Australian environmental programs, was introduced to me by Peter Carey from Natural England / University of Cambridge Botany Department. This new program, which has just finished development and was officially launched 1 st January 2013 is known internally as the Environmental Stewardship Evidence Plan. ( Agri-environment schemes were introduced in the 1980s in response to the recognition that agricultural intensification was having marked adverse effects on the landscape and wildlife of the UK. Between 1987 and 1992 two government-funded programs were introduced to provide stewardship payments to farmers to support them in conserving biodiversity and employing environmentally responsible land management practices; the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and Countryside Stewardship (CSS) Schemes. Monitoring suggested that these schemes were clearly successful in reducing the rate of loss of habitat (e.g. clearing vegetation for crops or livestock) but there was relatively little evidence for successful enhancement of biodiversity or environmental condition. In 2003, a review of AES recommended that the best elements of the ESA and CSS approaches be combined in a single scheme, Environmental Stewardship. This scheme was originally designed with three components: Entry Level Stewardship (ELS), Organic Entry Level Stewardship (OELS) and Higher Level Stewardship (HLS). HLS was launched in 2006, with the aim of encouraging and rewarding very high standards of environmental management, targeted on features of the greatest environmental value. 10

12 At the outset of an HLS agreement a Farm Environment Plan (FEP) is drafted, undertaken by an independent surveyor, that provides an audit of the features on a particular property, which are then linked to proposed management approaches. The logical next step is to evaluate whether an improvement in these features can be detected following a period of implementing the proposed management approaches. The main purpose of the new program is evaluation of HLS and its component processes and its potential to deliver planned outcomes. This project makes a significant contribution to the evidence base for the overall evaluation of Environmental Stewardship in the UK. As of late September 2012, there are 9900 HLS agreements. These cover a variety of vulnerable high-biodiversity habitats, including; moorland, semi-natural grassland and lowland heath. The most important aspect to this program is the fact that it achieves cost-effectiveness by giving individual farmers the capacity to evaluate outcomes on their own properties. For each property the landholder is given a list of environmental indicators that are both reliably linked to biodiversity and simple to measure for the non-scientist. These could include; - percentage cover of local grasses / shrubs compared to bare ground - density of particular tree species (e.g. ash, birch) - depth of soil cover - abundance of easily-identifiable bird species The program is only in the early stages but provides a good example of where private land conservation should be going in the future. Currently in NSW there is very little evaluation of the success of private land conservation mechanisms (it is generally assumed that improved management regimes are leading to improved biodiversity outcomes). Where monitoring is undertaken, it is generally implemented by professional consultants at significant cost to government. This is definitely one area where Australia could look to the UK to improve current systems. 11

13 How can the value of learning be quantified? One of the key problems I sought to solve during my Fellowship was, how can the value of learning in conservation (e.g. research / adaptive management) be demonstrated to decisionmakers? The first step in solving this problem is being able to quantify this value in any given conservation context. The currency involved, with respect to conservation, will either be actual dollars (or pounds etc.) or some sort of measure of biodiversity, whether that be species viability or abundance, or the extent of condition of habitat. For environmental managers, the value of any decision will generally be realised as a cost; i.e. either the cost of implementing management or the cost of losing some quantity of biodiversity. The trick is in trying to measure this cost (or benefit in the form of unrealised potential cost). Vultures and cows in the subcontinent One way to investigate the potential benefit of learning is to look at case studies that demonstrate a tangible benefit as the outcome of investment in research. One of the best examples of this came out of my discussions with Chris Bowden and Rhys Green from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). Beginning in the 1990s, three species of vulture endemic to South Asia the oriental whitebacked vulture (Gyps bengalensis), long-billed vulture (G. indicus) and slender-billed vulture (G. tenuirostris) - experienced severe declines in their populations, to the point where less than 1% of their original numbers remained. For several years nobody had any idea of the possible cause of these dramatic declines. It wasn t until significant resources were invested by different research institutions (including the University of Cambridge) and conservation organisations (including Birdlife International and the RSPB) into targeted research to identify factors responsible for the decline, that an answer was discovered. It turned out to be the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac, widely used in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh by farmers to treat disease and injury in livestock (Oaks et al 2004; Green et al 2007). In response to these findings, a combination of lobbying governments to change laws with respect to the sale and use of diclofenac and community awareness raising by conservation organisations, has led to a halt in the species decline (Balmford 2013). The recovery of these species is likely to be slow and historical population sizes may never be reached again, but their extinction has been avoided. This story is a clear example of how investment in targeted research reaped enormous biodiversity benefits. This is not a new concept and many such stories exist, but how can we use these experiences to quantify the benefits in order to justify future expenditure on similar research? From my discussions with another RSPB staff member and economist Donal McCarthy, it seems that the simplest way to quantify these benefits is to estimate the likely financial cost of not learning. For example, in this case study, rather than trying to put a value on the prevention of three species extinction (very difficult, although many researchers are currently attempting to quantify the financial benefits of services provided by ecosystems and species) it would be simple to pose the question, what would have to have been spent on species management if the cause of decline were not identified? This would have involved extensive captive breeding programs, which are generally very expensive and very high risk. In this way it can be clearly demonstrated that the research conducted, although representing a significant investment, was ultimately highly cost-effective. 12

14 Fox control; bang for your buck? How do you develop a mathematical model that can tell environmental managers when it is costeffective to invest in research and when it is not? Recent work led by Donal McCarthy himself has demonstrated that calculating the cost of managing threatened species and ecosystems across the world is possible (McCarthy et al 2012). Calculating the likely costs of research is also relatively straightforward researchers applying for funding do it every year. The final piece in the puzzle, however, is quantifying the likely cost of not learning. One way to do this is to investigate the relationship between uncertainty in management and its outcomes. Jessica Walsh, a PhD student in the Conservation Science group at the University of Cambridge recently led a study based in Australia, investigating the return on investment in feral fox control for protecting Malleefowl (a threatened, ground-nesting bird). This study represents a perfect example of the potential costs of uncertainty in conservation management. Using a data set involving 23 years of fox control effort (poison baiting) over a massive area across NSW, SA and Victoria, Jessica and her colleagues found that there was no relationship between the number of baits laid and the density of foxes, and subsequently, no relationship between the density of foxes and the survival of Malleefowl or their offspring (Walsh et al 2012) (Figure 3). In this instance, an investment (primarily by governments) of over $50 million could be interpreted as being wasted, primarily due to uncertainty in the biological response of the system. Figure 3: Relationship between investment in fox control (poison baiting) and Malleefowl reproductive success and survival (from Walsh et al 2012). 13

15 Modeling cost-effectiveness for conservation In reference to the example described above, in hindsight it would have been cost effective to conduct a well-controlled, replicated experiment to determine under what conditions fox baiting works and when it doesn t, even if the experiment cost several million dollars to conduct. The value of this information could have led to $50 million in savings. The question then becomes, how can you derive a model that conservation practitioners can use to predict when additional investment in research or adaptive management is likely to be costeffective in any given situation? Jessica Walsh and I, along with some other collaborators I met via contacts made during my fellowship Richard Maloney from the New Zealand Department of Conservation and Ayesha Tulloch and Will Probert from the University of Queensland have begun to try to figure it out. For a particular conservation intervention (e.g. fox control), we need to know the relationship between investment in targeted research and uncertainty in the system / species response (i.e. as more is spent on more complex experimental design and larger sample sizes how much does our understanding of the system improve?) (Figure 4). We also need to know how much is being spent on the intervention each year. The relationship between uncertainty and outcome can be estimated with some confidence (Figure 5); for example, if managers are only 50% confident that an intervention will be successful and they are spending $10,000 per year on implementing it, then it could be argued that (over time) they are wasting $5,000 per year. Figure 4: Indicative relationship between net investment in learning (e.g. additional costs associated with research or adaptive management) and uncertainty about the system response to conservation intervention Combining all of this information into a single global model will, for any given set of conditions, be able to predict whether or not investing in learning is likely to result in significant financial or biodiversity return (Figure 6). This could prove to be a very useful model for anyone faced with decisions regarding the investment of scarce conservation funds. 14

16 Figure 5: Indicative relationship between uncertainty in the system response (manager s confidence that the intervention will work as expected) and the biodiversity outcome on the ground. Figure 6: Indicative relationship between investment in learning and ultimate biodiversity outcome (combination of the two relationships depicted in Figures 4 and 5). I represents the additional investment in learning under two different scenarios and B represents the respective difference in biodiversity outcome. B/I = cost-effectiveness of the marginal increase in investment in learning. 15

17 The Conservation Evidence Project One of the most influential people I met during my Fellowship was Professor William Sutherland from the Conservation Science group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge. Prof Sutherland is well known throughout the conservation community for his work over many years as a proponent of evidence-based conservation. He is the founder and coordinator of Conservation Evidence; an ongoing project that collates and synthesizes scientific evidence for various conservation interventions and communicates it to conservation practitioners via a free and accessible online database ( Recently, Conservation Evidence has expanded into producing published volumes known as Synopses which contain comprehensive summaries of all available evidence for interventions associated with particular environmental themes (Figure 7). Three volumes have been published so far; Bee Conservation, Bird Conservation and Farmland Conservation, and several more are in production, including volumes on Amphibians and Reptiles. Figure 7: The first Conservation Evidence Synopsis to be published Bee Conservation. Conservation evidence Synopses represent an innovative solution to a chronic problem in biodiversity management, which is the disconnect between science and practice. Having valuable information on the efficacy of different conservation interventions easily accessible to conservation practitioners is key to reducing uncertainty (and consequently increasing effectiveness) in the management of biodiversity generally. Given the European focus of existing Synopses, I discussed with Prof Sutherland the feasibility and potential benefits of a Synopsis dealing specifically with Australian systems. Given the uniqueness of many Australian species and habitats, we both agreed it was definitely worthwhile. Based on my experience interviewing over 300 different conservation practitioners over the past two years to develop management plans for threatened species in NSW, I was well aware of the uncertainty in the evidence-base for many conservation interventions commonly employed in Australia. These uncertainties are most frequent and have the potential to be the most costly in one field in particular: the management of invasive species. 16

18 Introduced invasive animal and plant species are one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in Australia. Of the 19 Key Threatening Processes listed under the federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999), 11 are introduced invasive animals or plants. In New South Wales, invasive species pose a critical threat to 70% of species listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). Consequently, every year in Australia it is estimated that over $60 million is spent on controlling the impacts of invasive animals alone (McLeod 2004). Based on my discussions with Prof Sutherland, I have submitted a post-doctoral research proposal (Discovery Early Career Research Award) to the Australian Research Council (ARC) to write a Conservation Evidence Synopsis focusing on invasive species management interventions in Australia. The proposal is supported by the University of Cambridge and the University of Sydney. 17

19 References Balmford A. (2013) Pollution, Politics, and Vultures. Science 339, Balmford A. & Whitten T. (2003) Who should pay for tropical conservation, and how could the costs be met? Oryx 37, Carwadine J., T O. C., Legge S., B M., Possingham H. & TG M. (2012) Prioritizing threat management for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Letters 5, Cook C. N., Carter R. W., Fuller R. A. & Hockings M. (2012) Managers consider multiple lines of evidence important for biodiversity management decisions. Journal of Environmental Management 113, Ferraro P. J. & Pattanayak S. K. (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. Plos Biology 4, Green R. E., Taggart M. A., Senacha K. R. et al. (2007) Rate of Decline of the Oriental White- Backed Vulture Population in India Estimated from a Survey of Diclofenac Residues in Carcasses of Ungulates PLoS One 2 e686. Hajkowicz S. (2009) The evolution of Australia's natural resource management programs: Towards improved targeting and evaluation of investments. Land Use Policy 26, Joseph L. N., Maloney R. F. & Possingham H. P. (2008) Optimal Allocation of Resources among Threatened Species: a Project Prioritization Protocol. Conservation Biology 23, McCarthy D., Donald P., Scharlemann J., Buchanan G., Balmford A., Green J., Bennun L., Burgess N., Fishpool L., Garnett S., Leonard D., Maloney R., Morling P., Schaefer H., Symes A., Wiedenfeld D. & Butchart S. (2012) Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: Current spending and unmet needs. Science, 1-7. McLeod R. (2004) Counting the Cost: Impact of Invasive Animals in Australia. Cooperative Research Centre for Pest Animal Control, Canberra. Oaks, J.L., Gilbert, M., Virani, M.Z. et al. (2004) Diclofenac residues as the cause of vulture population decline in Pakistan. Nature 427, Pullin A. S. & Knight T. M. (2001) Effectiveness in conservation practice: Pointers from medicine and public health. Conservation Biology 15, Segan D. B., Bottrill M. C., Baxter P. W. J. & Possingham H. P. (2011) Using Conservation Evidence to Guide Management. Conservation Biology 25, Soderquist T. (2011) What we do not know and have not learned about cost benefit prioritisation of rock-wallaby management. Australian Mammology 33, Sutherland W. J., Pullin A. S., Dolman P. M. & Knight T. M. (2004) The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19, Walsh J., Wilson K., Benshemesh J. & Possingham H. (2012) Unexpected outcomes of invasive predator control the importance of evaluating conservation management actions. Animal Conservation 15, Weerakoon M. K. & Banks P. B. (2011) Not just a matter of taste: palatability of bait markers is influenced by the need to search for alternative food. Wildlife Research 38, Wilson K. A., Underwood E. C., Morrison S. A., Klausmeyer K. R., Murdoch W. W., Reyers B., Wardell-Johnson G., Marquet P. A., Rundel P. W., McBride M. F., Pressey R. L., Bode M., Hoekstra J. M., Andelman S., Looker M., Rondinini C., Kareiva P., Shaw M. R. & Possingham H. P. (2007) Conserving biodiversity efficiently: What to do, where, and when. Plos Biology 5,

20 Conclusions and Recommendations 1. The Cambridge Conservation Forum framework for monitoring, evaluation and reporting on conservation management projects sets out clear guidelines that allow environmental managers to objectively assess the outcomes of their work and it facilitates adaptive management. Conservation programs in Australia (including the NSW threatened species program) should look to this framework as a model for improving accountability and effectiveness on the ground. 2. As in many jurisdictions around the world, the evidence base for many conservation interventions is poor. This can lead to reduced effectiveness and inadequate (or inefficient) biodiversity outcomes. In the UK, the University of Cambridge has responded to this situation with the Conservation Evidence project. This initiative should be expanded into Australia and tailored to suit the nation s unique biodiversity and environmental conditions. 3. Given the UK s experience with private land conservation (the majority of land is managed for production or other purposes), Australia should learn from programs developed in the UK aiming to maximize biodiversity outcomes for privately managed land, such as the Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) program. Specifically, using the Environmental Stewardship Evidence Plan as a model for evaluating the effectiveness of our private land conservation and associated natural resource management programs. 4. The quantitative model that is in development by Will Probert and myself will be a useful and important tool for environmental managers to make decisions with respect to investing in learning. In general, the biodiversity and economic benefits (particularly the latter for government agencies) of investing in learning should be articulated clearly throughout the conservation community with a view to shifting the culture of under-valuing and underinvesting in learning. 5. The consistent feedback I received on NSW OEH s plans for redeveloping its threatened species strategy were that they were ambitious but needed. I have concluded from my experiences in the UK with many international organizations and government agencies that the new program will likely represent one of the most comprehensive, detailed and rigorous initiative for managing threatened species in the world. 19

21 Disseminating findings Over the next several months I plan to disseminate the knowledge that I have gained on my fellowship within and without my workplace (NSW Office of Environment and Heritage). Specifically, I will undertake the following: Submit a manuscript describing the quantitative modeling of optimizing investment in learning for various conservation interventions to the journal Conservation Letters. Present an overview of my findings at the OEH Science division symposium series Present my relevant findings to the Environmental Programs Division via the informal seminar series Submit a proposal (along with Prof William Sutherland and A/Prof Peter Banks) to develop a Conservation Evidence Synopsis focusing on interventions to control invasive species in Australia for an ARC Discovery Early Career Award (2014) Present my findings and promote my recommendations to the Society for Conservation Policy (of which I am Secretary) for wider communication to members and the conservation community Present my experiences and findings at a Churchill Chat session hosted by the NSW Churchill Fellows Association 20