Measuring and Reporting on Effectiveness – New Zealand

Experiences

Department of ConservationTe Papa Atawhai

Hugh LoganDirector General,Department of Conservation, New Zealand World Parks Congress, Durban, September 2003

Five Main Points

1. Context: New Zealand’s ecology is unusual and relatively well protected;

2. Primary focus of measurement is to improve management;

3. Secondary focus is information for reporting;

4. World Heritage Area reporting is based on information used only for reporting;

5. Learning about management effectiveness is a long and continuing process.

Here’s our place

1. Context: New Zealand’s ecology is unusual

Split from Gondwana - 65 million years isolated development

Mammals not present

Birds filled all major niches

Ancient forests evolved slowly

One of the 25 biodiversity hot spots

Evolution in Isolation

New Zealand was the last major land mass settled by humans

The impact on indigenous ecosystems has been a disaster

NZ’sIntroduced

Forest before PolynesianSettlement

Forest at EuropeanSettlement

Forest today

Forest before European settlement

100

80

60

40

20

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 AD

%

% animal species

% Forest

Loss of indigenous species & forest cover

• 8.3 million hectares• 14 National Parks• 15 Marine Reserves• 68 Conservation Parks• 3 World Heritage Areas one

of which is both a cultural and natural heritage site

Protected areas are about 30% of the land area but less than 1% of the marine

Context: New Zealand’s ecology is unusual and relatively well protected

2. Primary focus of measurement is to improve management

• Major effort to improve measurement with the Department

• Traditional focus has been reporting on what we do (outputs)

• Now moving to measure what is being achieved (outcomes) – the changes in the health of ecosystems and species

• This is much harder

3. Secondary focus is information for reporting

• Information for reporting still tends to drive our processes – to Parliament, other government and international agencies

• There is a tension between meeting the reporting need and collecting information for management needs

• It is often said that this should not be so, but the needs of managers and external agencies are different

4. WHA reporting is based on information used only for reporting

• WHA reporting is too coarse-grained to contribute to our management information needs.

• We do it because we recognise the external reporting is of value, but it is an additional task

5. Learning about our management effectiveness is a long process

• We are making good progress on improving measurement

• We recognise that this takes time and investment in systems and capacity

• For example: We can now report on the extent to which different kinds of ecosystems are protected

• As a surrogate for outcomes reporting we are also reporting on the efforts we are making and providing examples of site and species-specific condition to describe what is being achieved

• Over the next 3-5 years we will be able to report more comprehensively on the states of Environments and Species and how these states are changing

• We will follow a similar path in reporting on freshwater and marine ecosystems, albeit more slowly

Becoming more comprehensive

In Summary: 5 Main Points

• New Zealand’s ecology is unusual and relatively well protected – main issue is the decline in ecosystem health;

• Primary focus of measurement is to improve management;

• Secondary focus is information for reporting;• World Heritage Area reporting

does not assist our management work;

• Learning about changing ecosystem condition andmanagement effectivenessis a long and continuingprocess.