Desired outcome for 2020
We have become more effective as a country at learning about biodiversity and our management of it. Decisions that affect New Zealand's biodiversity are based on sufficient and timely information and effective management approaches, underpinned by a growing knowledge base which draws on local and traditional knowledge (matauranga Maori). When information is inadequate, a precautionary approach to decision making is taken.

Significant progress has been made in identifying and describing indigenous species, their distribution, and their genetic properties. Critical shortfalls in information have been addressed in key taxonomic groups and environments, including marine environments. New Zealand has made significant progress towards mapping our ecosystems and understanding how ecosystems function and the human-induced impacts on them. Investment in applied research has enabled technical breakthroughs, especially in relation to pest and weed control technologies that are ecologically appropriate, socially acceptable and of practical use to resource managers. Economic and social applied research guides the development of increasingly effective management methods.

We have become more systematic in our management of biodiversity. A bioregional approach to the assessment of biodiversity and coordination of its management draws effectively on the knowledge, skills and experience of national, regional and local organisations, communities, iwi and hapu, and individuals. Information about biodiversity at all levels is widely accessible, and resource managers are able to select the best mix of management tools from a range of mechanisms to suit local conditions. Those responsible for managing activities that affect biodiversity have sufficient capacity to do so, and share their skills and experience with others.

Monitoring and state of the environment reporting provide relevant and widely available feedback on the status of, and trends in, indigenous biodiversity. An adaptive management approach has been developed and widely adopted that enables ecological and other relevant information to be incorporated in decision making.

The primary conclusion of New Zealand's first State of the Environment report is that New Zealand's environmental information needs considerable upgrading if the state of our environment is to be accurately described and trends detected.

There are significant gaps in our knowledge of indigenous species (their taxonomy, distribution and inter-relationships) and ecosystems. This is especially true in the marine environment, where gaps in our knowledge of marine biodiversity currently prevent a fully sustainable or ecosystem-based approach to management.

Gaps in information about indigenous biodiversity have been highlighted in relation to RMA requirements to manage significant areas of indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna. Here, a lack of good information and understanding about the information that exists has created implementation problems and increased the risk of loss of natural areas important for New Zealand's indigenous biodiversity. There are also information gaps in relation to how to sensitively manage indigenous ecosystems in a way that allows productive use, while ensuring longterm ecological sustainability and maintenance of indigenous biodiversity.

Research on biodiversity is undertaken by many different agencies, with a range of funding sources; in some cases biodiversity research is thinly spread, poorly coordinated and under-resourced.

There are relatively few commonly adopted methods for how biodiversity information is acquired, managed, transferred and used. This limits information sharing by resource managers and communities. These problems are aggravated by a lack of coherent accountabilities for collecting, managing and sharing information on biodiversity. Programmes already in place, including the Protected Natural Areas Programme, the Environmental Performance Indicators Programme and some adaptive management initiatives, offer potential to address these problems, but they await more general implementation. Systems have not generally provided for the effective participation of local people in checking and adding to information, and few organisations have the in-house expertise to check information themselves.

Historically, management of biodiversity has been perceived as a central government function, and the emphasis has been on creating public protected areas and managing protected species. However, to sustain the full range of New Zealand's terrestrial biodiversity, emphasis will also need to be given to maintaining remnant natural areas on private land and managing production and urban areas sympathetically. There are also needs for improved management of biodiversity in freshwater and marine environments. This creates a demand for new skills and management practices, which have not been generally integrated into the management systems of local government and the private sector. These organisations and sectors often lack the capacity to respond to the needs of biodiversity protection. This shortfall could be addressed through assistance by central government and also central and local government partnerships with the private sector.

Gaps in knowledge about biodiversity and its management
Gaps in scientific knowledge of New Zealand's biodiversity constrain its effective management. In particular, there are gaps in: knowledge of the taxonomy, distribution and population viability of indigenous species; classifying and understanding the extent, condition and functioning of ecosystems; and knowledge about the interaction between indigenous and introduced species, including introduced pests.

• Processes are needed to identify critical knowledge gaps and to target Crown and private research to fill them, with a focus on the following key areas:
  • diversity and ecological roles of microorganisms;
  • land-based invertebrates and plants;
  • coastal and marine species and ecosystems;
  • impacts of exotic species on indigenous biodiversity;
  • genetic diversity of indigenous species;
  • ecological and evolutionary processes and their links with ecosystem stability and function;
  • interactions between the physical and environmental characteristics of a habitat and its biodiversity; and
  • effects of climate variability and change on biodiversity, including their effects on biosecurity risks to indigenous and important introduced biodiversity.
• Techniques to control the adverse effects of introduced pest species need to be enhanced by investment in applied research, with a particular focus on:
  • enhancing methods to control possums and weeds, especially biological control;
  • developing effective techniques for the control of predators such as stoats, and newly introduced pest species in the marine environments; and
  • developing methods to effectively control the impact of invertebrate pests and diseases on both indigenous biodiversity and our important introduced species.

• Recognise existing methods for classifying and mapping ecosystems (such as the Protected Natural Areas Programme, bioregional classifications, landscape-based classifications and recent work on environmental domains) and identify where further work is required.
• Carry out more research to understand the appropriate scales for mapping different ecosystems, based on the issues and threats which resource managers and communities need to manage.
• Develop new systems and methods that help decision makers to map ecosystems and predict future threats to indigenous biodiversity in their area.

Monitoring changes in our biodiversity
To understand changes in the extent and condition of New Zealand's biodiversity, we need to use consistent methods to monitor biodiversity that provide useful information about key issues and threats. Most of our existing monitoring data is of limited use - it has gaps on important issues or over time - and it cannot be aggregated or compared with results from other areas.

• Monitoring agencies do not always have appropriate measures and methods (including indicators) to derive consistent information about key biodiversity issues and threats in their area.
• Monitoring regimes are insufficiently linked to resource managers' key biodiversity outcomes, which means that progress towards outcomes cannot be measured effectively.
• Benefits from monitoring biodiversity are not always understood, and statutory requirements to monitor the state of our biodiversity are not always complied with.
• The lack of consistent monitoring measures and methods means that information often cannot be compared or aggregated across different issues or administrative boundaries, and cannot be used by resource managers elsewhere to address similar threats in similar environments.

• Often, we simply do not know what biodiversity information is available elsewhere. Systems to coordinate existing data and information about biodiversity, in a way that is accessible to resource managers and the wider community, are lacking.
• Systems are needed to aggregate local monitoring information and report it using agreed indicators to provide a local, regional and national picture of the extent and condition of, and trends in, our indigenous biodiversity.
• In cases where good management approaches are being developed, experience needs to be effectively shared within and between agencies, sector groups, communities and individuals.

• Accountabilities for collecting, managing and sharing information on biodiversity are not clearly assigned to management agencies at national, regional and local levels.
• Information must be backed up by the expertise to interpret it and ensure its effective uptake into management.
• There is a need for a practical, "on the ground", skill base to be developed and maintained in every region. Systems that provide for ongoing improvement of communities' and organisations' knowledge and management capacity are also needed.
• There is a need to develop approaches which help individuals, communities, iwi and hapu, and business groups to develop and sustain commitment to managing biodiversity.
• Capacity takes time to develop - strategic planning is needed to anticipate needs for knowledge, information and techniques.
• Education, skill development and training needs need to be identified and fostered in our education system.

• Assist understanding and use of environmental impact assessments and other methods to help decision makers account for the economic and non-economic value of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
• Inform decision makers of the range of regulatory and non-regulatory tools and mechanisms available (including financial, information and property-based measures) for encouraging and rewarding sympathetic management of biodiversity.

Action Plan⁶²

Objective 9.1 Expand the research frontier

Identify and fill critical gaps in scientific knowledge, including applied research, and prioritise and coordinate future research to address key issues and threats to biodiversity.

Key players: MfE*, DoC*, MoRST*, FRST, LAs, universities, museums, other research providers, iwi/hapu⁶³

b) Invest in relevant research that contributes to better management of introduced pests and enhanced management of indigenous biodiversity.

Key players: DoC*, FRST*, MfE, LAs, universities, other research providers

Develop and implement effective approaches to map indigenous biodiversity at ecosystem scales and inform management actions and research.

Key players: MfE*, DoC, FRST, Mfish, LAs, research providers, iwi/hapu

b) Accelerate biodiversity survey, identification and assessment of threats to key ecosystems. (See also Actions 1.1a, 2.1b and 3.1b).

Key players: MfE*, DoC, FRST, Mfish, LAs, research providers, iwi/hapu, landowners, NGOs

Use consistent measures and methods to monitor and provide information on key changes in the extent and condition of indigenous biodiversity.

Key players: DoC, MfE*, MoRST, SSC, Mfish, MAF, LAs, research providers, iwi/hapu

b) Develop, select and use cost-effective methods (including indicators) for monitoring indigenous biodiversity and threats to indigenous biodiversity.

Key players: MfE*, DoC, Mfish, LAs, iwi/hapu

Ensure that local, regional and national reporting on the state of indigenous biodiversity informs ongoing priority setting for biodiversity management and research as a key part of an adaptive management approach.

Key players: MfE*, DoC, Mfish, FRST, LINZ, LAs, Statistics NZ, Standards NZ, research providers, iwi/hapu

Consolidate and share existing and new information, methods, technologies and management experiences so that others can benefit from relevant knowledge about indigenous biodiversity.

Key players: MfE*, DoC, MAF, Mfish, MoRST, LAs, research providers, iwi/hapu

Enhance the capacity of people and organisations to fulfil their responsibilities to conserve and sustainably manage New Zealand's indigenous biodiversity.

Actions:
a) Document codes of practice and expected performance standards for use of the most cost effective techniques for managing biodiversity and provide for the evaluation and continuous improvement of these techniques and the sharing of information on best practice.

Key players: MfE*, DoC, Mfish, industry and sector groups, research providers, iwi/hapu

b) Incorporate biodiversity values into sector- and industry-based environmental management systems, performance standards, guidelines, environmental policies and codes of practice, with the help of advice and information from government agencies.

Key players: MfE*, industry and sector groups, research providers

c) Ensure that biodiversity management agencies review and monitor their capacity to implement best practice management techniques, enhance their competencies and share these experiences with others.

Key players: MfE*, DoC, Mfish, LAs, research providers

d) Ensure appropriate skills training and education to enhance the capacity of people and relevant management agencies to manage indigenous biodiversity.

Key players: MfE*, DoC, LAs, MoEd, industry and sector groups, universities, research providers, iwi/hapu

Improve the knowledge of market and non-market values of indigenous biodiversity and develop methodologies to evaluate the full cost of activities in terms of their impacts on these biodiversity values.

Key players: DoC*, MfE*, LAs, industry and sector groups

b) Investigate and raise awareness of the range of incentives (including financial, information and property-based mechanisms) which resource managers can use to encourage and reward sympathetic management of indigenous biodiversity (see also Actions 1.1e, 1.1f and 2.1e).

Key players: MfE*, DoC*, LAs, community groups, iwi/hapu
 

* Government lead

⁶² Actions shown in bold are priority actions (see Theme Four).

⁶³ See key to key players.