Integration of the management of threatened species into ecosystem management programmes is an efficient and effective way of conserving biodiversity. A number of threatened and conservation-dependent species occur in Ecosystem Management Units (EMUs), and so are likely to benefit from work that is currently being undertaken by the Department of Conservation (DOC) to improve the ecological integrity of those sites.
Of these, 220 species are likely to benefit from management in three or more sites. While the minimum number of sites required will vary from species to species, these 220 species are more likely to be secure from extinction.
Threatened species may also benefit from DOC’s broad-scale intervention programmes, such as ‘Battle for our Birds’.
More vertebrates (e.g. birds, fish and reptiles), and fewer invertebrates and plants than might be expected given the number of threatened species in these groups are likely to benefit from management in EMUs (Table 1). This may, in part, be due to incomplete data - DOC is still collating information about important sites for invertebrates and plants, which may occur in EMUs.
Proportionally fewer highly threatened species (i.e. those classified as Nationally Critical and Nationally Endangered) are benefitting from ecosystem management than less threatened species (Table 2). The generation of an integrated list of priority sites that reflects both ecosystem and species values may provide DOC managers and partners with better advice about where to manage for highly threatened species.
Future reports on this measure will be more accurate because integration requires more complete data from experts about species’ management needs and from operational plans comprising the actions to be delivered at each site. This will allow not only validation of the number and type of managed sites required for each species, but also provide an indication of whether management at those sites will address all barriers to species persistence.
Table 1. Number of threatened or declining species that will benefit from ecosystem management, by taxon.
| Species Group | Managed in three or more places | Managed in at least one place |
|---|---|---|
| Bats | 5 | 5 |
| Beetles | 4 | 26 |
| Birds | 41 | 53 |
| Bryophytes | 1 | |
| Freshwater fish | 26 | 34 |
| Frogs | 1 | 5 |
| Land Snails | 12 | 88 |
| Lepidoptera | 5 | 27 |
| Nemertini | 1 | |
| Orthoptera | 3 | 20 |
| Reptiles | 42 | 54 |
| Spiders | 1 | |
| Vascular plants | 81 | 185 |
| TOTAL | 220 | 500 |
Table 2. Number of threatened or declining species that will benefit from ecosystem management, by threat status.
| Threat Status | Managed in three or more places | Managed in at least one place |
|---|---|---|
| Nationally Critical | 42 | 150 |
| Nationally Endangered | 29 | 78 |
| Nationally Vulnerable | 69 | 120 |
| Declining | 46 | 59 |
| Total | 186 | 407 |
The data in these tables were produced by relating:
Quantitative measurements of the results of funded actions and their outcomes for threatened species’ population viability were not directly incorporated into this analysis.
This measure is classified as supporting information. The New Zealand Threat Classification System is a qualitative process that utilises the judgement of specialists who assess the conservation status of species according to their risk of extinction within New Zealand at 5-yearly intervals. Thus, the quality and availability of scientific information to support the threat listing process varies between species and species groups.
This measure relates to indicator 1.4.2 - Security of threatened and at risk taxa.
This measure complies with the data quality guidelines used in New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting framework.
The Department of Conservation’s (DOC’s) Outcomes Monitoring Framework provides a platform on which DOC and others can assess outcomes in a clear, structured and transparent way (Lee et al., 2005). It has been developed as a logical hierarchy that is based on broad, overarching Outcomes, beneath which are nested Outcome Objectives, Indicators, Measures and Data Elements to provide ever increasing levels of detail. The framework is scalable, as the indicators and measures remain compatible and consistent whether applied locally, regionally or nationally. The recently updated framework provides a roadmap for gathering information to meet the specific objectives of DOC and other agencies (McGlone and Dalley, 2015). The provision of a national framework with agreed outcomes, indicators and measures supports collaboration with land management and regulatory agencies, allowing for more integrated environmental policy and ‘State of the Environment’ reporting. DOC has partially implemented a national monitoring and reporting system, whereby priority indicators and measures are routinely used to report on progress against the objectives and outcomes. This factsheet reports on a measure for the 2015/16 year.
DOC Ecosystem Management Units (EMUs) are places that have been identified as being important for management due to the types and condition of the ecosystems and species present. They may be on land/water of any tenure (not only PCL) and often include several connected ecosystems and communities of threatened species.
Ecological Integrity (EI) describes the level to which the full potential of indigenous biotic and abiotic features and natural processes, functioning in sustainable communities, habitats, and landscapes is met.
Lee, W., McGlone, M., Wright, E., 2005. Biodiversity inventory and monitoring: A review of national and international systems and a proposed framework for future biodiversity monitoring by the Department of Conservation. Landcare Research Contract Report LC0405/122 (unpublished) for the Department of Conservation, Wellington.
McGlone, M., Dalley, J., 2015. A framework for Department of Conservation inventory and monitoring: Intermediate outcomes 1-5. Landcare Research Contract Report LC2427 (unpublished) for the Department of Conservation, Wellington.