Auction for Landscape Recovery

Cheryl Gole, WWF-Australia

With input from

Michael Burton, University of WAKristen Williams, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems

Auction for Landscape Recovery

AUCTION FOR LANDSCAPE RECOVERY

• One of 11 MBI pilots• Conservation auction• Funded by NAPSWQ

• Total $495,000• On-ground funds $200,000 (2 rounds)

ALR Project Region

12.5% veg (5-21%)

2.3m ha (1.7m)

740 farmers

NE Wheatbelt, Western Australia

THE PROJECT

• Research project and field trial

• Objectives• Test two methods of tender evaluation (Environmental

Benefits Index & Systematic Conservation Planning)• Determine minimum information needs• Compare auction & fixed price scheme• Determine economic efficiency

Auction Design

• Type of auction:• Sealed bid, price discriminating• Two rounds, $200K total• Multiple and joint bids from landholders permitted

• Contract design• Maximum 3 years works contracts• Periodic payments 2-4; activity milestones, with reports• Voluntary Management Agreements or covenants, optional• Contracting agency

Tender evaluation methods

• Two methods:• ‘Standard’ Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) – site-based scoring

system. Based on Toolkit • Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP) approach

• Operational objective: • Integrated EBI/SCP (make use of both methods to select best set of

tenders)

• Research objective: • What is the relative environmental or conservation achievement

from either tender selection method?

Environmental Benefits Index

• Native Biodiversity Benefits Index (NBBI)Vegetation or habitat condition (5 attributes)Vegetation or habitat complexity (9 attributes)Landscape context (8 attributes)Conservation significance (4 attributes)

• Other Environmental Benefits Index (OEBI) Soil, salt and water management (6 attributes)Other land management activities (e.g. livestock, fire, weeds,

ferals) (7 attributes)

• Null values where attributes irrelevant (eg hollows in shrubland)• Adapted for project region (eg biodiverse shrublands, granite

outcrops, naturally saline wetlands)

Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP)

• Structured systematic approach to making decisions about conservation planning

• Used for national reserve selection (Namibia, Costa Rica, PNG)• Based on explicit goals – preferably quantitative, operational targets• Requires clear choices of features used as surrogates• Involves prioritising places available for selection (So does EBI)• But: SCP is: active, iterative, dynamic process (EBI static)• Key principle = complementarity (relative contribution a proposed

place makes to existing protected areas, incl. those on private land)• Uses a selection algorithm that examines complementary value of

each tender

Weights• Environmental Benefits Index:

• NBBI weighted over OEBI• Within and between attribute groups:

• 4 attribute groups: veg condition, veg complexity, landscape context, conservation significance – weighted equally

• use of ‘null’ values• Normalizing scores before calculating final indices• Attributes and scores summed and normalised within groupings• Area in ha transformed to log base 10• OEBI weighted by 0.5

• SCP: weights through ‘preferences’ (‘look here first’; set by policy)• Threatened or priority fauna/flora• Threatened or priority threatened ecological communities• Indicators of species assemblages (e.g., granite outcrops)• Significant wetlands• Poorly conserved vegetation types• Potential natural diversity recovery catchments• Representative (target) landscapes• High EBI

Habitat Management Outcome

• Both rounds: MARG (Management Assessment Review Group) – assessed feasibility of on-ground actions in relation to proposed outcomes and objectives

• Round 1: LUCIS

• Round 2: current condition plus management review analysis

Outcomes: EOIs and tenders

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Round 1

Round 2

Round 1 47 38 55 38 10 10

Round 2 25 21 33 21 13 12

EOIs EOI L'holders

Tenders Tender L'holders

Successful Tenders

Successful L'holders

Outcomes: on-ground inputs

Combined tenders >$194,000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Round 1

Round 2

Round 1 9 4 7 4 2 2 6 6 0 6

Round 2 12 6 10 1 1 4 6 7 1 8

Contracts

Fence reveg

Fence rem't

Rabbit control

Fox control

Corridor const

Reveg Site prepCons cov't

VMA

Benefit Analysis: ALR R2: EBI perspective

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Total EBI

Cos

t/EB

I

Benefit Analysis: R2: SCP perspective

725000

726000

727000

728000

729000

730000

731000

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000

Cost

Dis

tan

ce to

Tar

get

Evaluation: refinements/future research

• Need effective method to assess management benefit/probability of persistence

• Definitions of ‘area of impact’• Assessing benefits for fauna• Challenges with multiple benefits• Managing contracts for compliance issues• ? Others related to comparison

Results

• 2 rounds are important!

• Efficiency: 2-3 times more efficient than fixed price scheme

• EBI/SCP comparison• EBI useful to ‘groundtruth’ the SCP• Which one???