Helping regional councils with strategic investment in research: a roadmap for biodiversity and biosecurity
The science system in New Zealand is complex, with science capability housed in universities, Crown Research Institutes, government agencies, and numerous smaller consultancies and private contractors. The number of different cross-organisational collaborations can be confusing too: Centres of Research Excellence, National Science Challenges, Hubs … the list goes on. To add still further to the confusion, there is a plethora of potential funding mechanisms. Little wonder that, to the outside observer, New Zealand’s science system can appear almost impenetrable.
Even for those looking to purchase or invest in research, things can be pretty confusing. As a consequence, in late 2013 the regional councils asked Andrea Byrom, from Landcare Research, and Matt Kavermann, an independent contractor, to help them take a broader view of the science system in order to help plan for longer-term needs in biodiversity and biosecurity research. The work was championed by Environment Southland, but was conducted on behalf of all New Zealand regional councils and unitary authorities.
The objectives of Andrea and Matt’s work were to:
- complete a strategic scan of the science system to determine a set of high-level goals
- complete a critical review of key reports and legislation to help councils clarify research priorities
- workshop ideas with a subset of regional council bio-managers to help test, review and revise the information
- identify opportunities to leverage and speed the delivery of outcomes
- develop a strategic Roadmap for regional councils, with a priority list of councils’ biosecurity and biodiversity research needs over a 10–20-year time frame.
Andrea and Matt interviewed regional councils’ stakeholders and staff, reviewed relevant legislation, and investigated how other organisations were going about their own strategic planning in the biodiversity and biosecurity sectors in New Zealand.
Desired outcomes
Five high-level outcomes emerged:
- Halt and reverse the decline of native biodiversity.
- Reduce land-use and invasive-species impacts in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems.
- Ensure the integrity of ecosystem services and natural capital.
- Improve environmental outcomes through increased community awareness.
- Anticipate and plan for future risks.
Research priorities to achieve the goals, and specific recommendations on pathways to increase uptake of research findings across the biosecurity and biodiversity sectors, were also identified.
Research priorities
The following are the recommended priority research areas:
1: Scaling up: landscapes and seascapes
The management of threats and responses across regional boundaries is required to achieve a national focus and determine how a network of interconnected ecosystems fits within a larger national picture. This priority brings a sharper focus to integrating site-based and landscape-scale management interventions.
2: Ecological monitoring and reporting
Monitoring is a fundamental part of activities for both biodiversity and biosecurity in order to evaluate management interventions, quantify ecosystem ‘health’ and ecosystem services, and determine the state and trend of exotic and native biota and habitats.
3: Surveillance and detection
Research needs under this priority are the development of best practice, and creating national protocols with up-to-date techniques that can be applied at regional and local scales. Tools and approaches need to be appropriate, affordable and practicable, and also coordinated and reported nationally.
4: Novel and improved tools, tactics and strategies for pest and weed control
This priority addresses the need for better tools and strategies to satisfy the demands of communities for a greater reduction of pest impacts on the environment and the economy.
5: Pathway analysis
Several drivers of global change have been linked to the emergence of new pests and diseases. Identifying, predicting and mitigating potential routes of invasion are essential. Understanding invasion pathways would enable councils to take a proactive and nationally coordinated approach to biosecurity.
6: Data management
It was recognised that councils are not appropriate organisations to lead research initiatives on improved data management, but they have a keen interest in ensuring they are linked to such initiatives nationally to facilitate informed decisions.
7: Social science and citizen science
Better engagement of the public in biodiversity and biosecurity activities is regarded as a critical component of the current operating environment, with a growing awareness that the use of new tools and strategies for mitigating threats comes with a need for new social research methods, alongside building capacity for citizens to become more engaged in science.
8: Risk analysis and prioritisation
Prioritisation of risks and threats is needed, which requires earmarking resources in advance of problems emerging and developing plans for timely intervention. Research requirements include the need for cost–benefit analyses of management interventions.
9: Ecosystem services and valuation of natural assets
Healthy, resilient ecosystems are needed to meet societal needs and aspirations across biodiversity conservation and intensive primary production. Innovative management interventions are aimed at enhancing ecosystem functions and services while minimising biodiversity loss, thereby maintaining resilience.
10: Modelling to predict future scenarios and risks
This research need was seen as critical, underpinning research priorities 1–9 and a critical element in addressing future risks and threats, such as climate change. Predictive modelling helps provide explicit information to explore the outcomes of management decisions and actions.
How are regional councils and unitary authorities making use of the Roadmap?
Delivery of the Roadmap coincided with a major period of change in the New Zealand science system. The councils recognised that the Roadmap was a major step towards better engagement and coordination of science needs and priorities with other organisations, and with the scientific community.
Coincidentally, the National Science Challenges were designed to ‘take a more strategic approach to the government’s science investment by targeting a series of goals, which, if achieved, would have major and enduring benefits for New Zealand’ (from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website).
The Regional Councils Bio-Managers’ Group have now made use of the Roadmap to:
- provide the New Zealand’s Biological Heritage (NZBH) National Science Challenge with a clear set of priority research needs for biodiversity and biosecurity
- coordinate science needs with other organisations via the NZBH Challenge process
- insert biodiversity and biosecurity research priorities into the updated regional councils’ RS&T Strategy (2016)
- update their processes for annual scanning of research needs, in recognition that the Roadmap has provided them with a better awareness of the New Zealand science system
- coordinate and collaborate with industry and philanthropic partners seeking improved environmental outcomes as part of their wider mandate.
The Roadmap can be found online at:www.envirolink.govt.nz/PageFiles/1285/1474-ESRC265%20Strategic%20roadmap%20for%20biosecurity%20and%20biodiversity%20research.pdf
This report was funded by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment via an Envirolink Advice Grant.
Andrea Byrom, Richard Bowman*, (Southland Regional Council), Kevin Collins* (independent, formerly Waikato Regional Council), Philippa Crisp*, (Greater Wellington Regional Council), Stephen Hall* (Taranaki Regional Council), Campbell Leckie* (Hawke’s Bay Regional Council)
