###When The Crown Controls Mātauranga: A Report on a Survey of Crown Policies, Programmes, Legislation, Funding, and Impact Assessment Relating to Mātauranga Māori### **October 2022** **Mead A, Smith V, J. A, Wilson-Leahy T, Ogilvie S, Watene-Rawiri E, Potter H, Shadbolt M. 2022. When The Crown Controls Mātauranga: A Report on a Survey of Crown Policies, Programmes, Legislation, Funding, and Impact Assessment Relating to Mātauranga Māori. Te Aho Mātauranga ISSN 2815-9853. 50 p.** **ABSTRACT** A report on a survey of Crown policies, programmes, legislation, funding, and impact assessment relating to mātauranga Māori. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34721/4mqx-w311
REPORT: When the Crown Controls Mātauranga
The original 2014 BioHeritage research and business plan. 2014 New Zealand's Biological Heritage National Science Challange - Ngā koiora tuku iho
STRATEGY: NZ's Biological Heritage National Science Challenge- original proposal
###Unintended consequences of planting native and non-native trees in treeless ecosystems to mitigate climate change### **March 2024** **Moyano J, Dimarco RD, Paritsis J, Peterson T, Peltzer DA, Crawford KM, Mccary MA, Davis KT, Pauchard A, Nunez MA. 2024. [Unintended consequences of planting native and non-native trees in treeless ecosystems to mitigate climate change.](https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1365-2745.14300) Journal of Ecology.** **ABSTRACT** Naturally treeless ecosystems are being replaced by native and non-native trees worldwide, often through deliberate afforestation using forestry tree species. By introducing species having novel traits, such as relatively rapid growth, many afforestation efforts also produce numerous changes in ecosystems, at the landscape scale. Trees are considered critical for climate change mitigation; indeed, many current carbon sequestration strategies rely on trees. Planting trees or allowing trees to naturally colonize through range expansions can be seen as an ideal way to increase atmospheric carbon capture. For example, a snapshot approach may show that introducing trees into treeless ecosystems enhances aboveground accumulation of carbon, helping increase ecosystem carbon storage. However, considering other impacts such as reductions in soil carbon or albedo and increased fire severity (through increases in fuel loads and connectivity) reduces the effectiveness of afforestation strategies for climate change amelioration. Additional negative impacts of afforestation are also likely, such as the reduction of native biodiversity and productivity, substantial water yield losses, and changes in nutrient cycles, which can exacerbate other global change drivers. Further, tree invasions originating from afforestation can exacerbate these negative impacts. *Synthesis*. This review highlights that the positive and negative impacts of planting trees in naturally treeless ecosystems as a strategy to mitigate climate change are idiosyncratic, depending on the location where trees are introduced, the time period trees are allowed to grow, and risks of spread and impacts associated with specific tree species. Although planting trees can potentially be a tool to fight climate change, a greater consideration of their impacts is required to minimize the unexpected negative consequences of afforestation efforts. **KEYWORDS** afforestation; carbon certification; carbon sequestration; global change ecology; invasive woody plants; natural climate solution; plant-climate interactions
PAPER: Unintended consequences of planting in treeless ecosystems
**Assessment on Multiple Values of Nature (the Values Assessment).** **October 2022** The BioHeritage National Science Challenge, Te Tira Whakamātaki and Bioprotection Aotearoa are pleased to co-host a webinar on the recently released Intergovernmental Platform on the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) **Facilitator:** Aroha Te Pareake Mead (BioHeritage National Science Challenge, Te Tira Whakamātaki Kāhui, Bioprotection Aotearoa). **Introduction to IPBES:** Bonnie Myers (IPBES Secretariat). **Panel of contributing co-authors:** Suneetha Subramanian (United Nations University, India) will give an overview of the Values Assessment, highlighting its relevance for Indigenous peoples. Eszter Kelemen (Environmental Social Science Research Group, Hungary) will speak to operationalising in the context of transformative change towards just and sustainable futures. **Discussants:** Melanie Mark-Shadbolt (Te Tira Whakamātaki); Jason Tylianakis (University of Canterbury, BioHeritage National Science Challenge). **To watch this webinar [CLICK HERE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcw1209_n0s)**
###Co-designing a research programme for impact: lessons learned from practice by Aotearoa New Zealand's Biological Heritage National Science Challenge Nga Koiora Tuku Iho### **June 2023** **Duncan R, Robson-Williams M 2023. [Co-designing a research programme for impact: lessons learned from practice by Aotearoa New Zealand's Biological Heritage National Science Challenge Nga Koiora Tuku Iho](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/1177083X.2023.2227675?needAccess=true). Kotuitui-New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online: 1-26.** **ABSTRACT** Doing co-design and co-production is challenging, resource intensive, and outcomes do not always translate into action. Evaluations of processes are needed to identify what enables and constrains ‘co’ efforts. This paper draws on the findings of an evaluation of a co-design process undertaken by Aotearoa New Zealand’s Biological Heritage National Science Challenge, Ngā Koiora Tuku Iho (BHNSC) in 2019. The independent evaluation, commissioned by the BHNSC, draws on process observations and 25 semi-structured interviews with BHNSC leaders and process participants. In this paper, we present key insights from the evaluation through the application of co-production quality assessment principles and a knowledge governance conceptual framework. Our analysis identifies the BHNSC’s values as a critical factor in its journey to conduct a process that would foster collaboration between mātauranga Māori and Western science knowledge systems and deliver impact-focused biodiversity and biosecurity research. We propose an additional principle for assessing the quality of co-production processes: values-inspired. **KEYWORDS** Co-production and co-design; values-inspired knowledge practices; knowledge governance; mātauranga Māori; biodiversity and biosecurity
**June 2023** It's been 11 years since the release of Ko Aotearoa Tēnei – a Waitangi Tribunal report into the Wai 262 claim concerning laws and policies that adversely affected Māori culture and identity. The Tribunal noted that “every Crown agency that appeared in our inquiry, and most of those that did not, deals with mātauranga to some extent.” In May 2021 we sent six questions to the Chief Executives of the 32 government agencies (as listed on the Public Service Commission website). These inquired about their policies, legislation, funding, administration, measurement of, and overall contribution to, mātauranga. Ultimately 84% of the departments responded, with three additional agencies included in responses. **Click the link here to read the full report: [When the Crown controls mātauranga](https://data.bioheritage.nz/dataset/bioheritage-challenge/resource/53b42e26-e9e0-4289-879a-8de1c8ca82b7)** **Click the link here to read the summary report: [When the Crown controls mātauranga](https://data.bioheritage.nz/dataset/bioheritage-challenge/resource/86f80e2a-888d-40fe-a2ba-5a9689a1910d)**
WEBINAR: When the Crown controls mātauranga
2019 Highlights from [New Zealand's Biological Heritage National Science Challenge](http://www.biologicalheritage.nz/).
###Proceedings and conclusions of a workshop on biodiversity data sharing and sovereignty### **May 2017** **Wiser SK, and P. Bellingham 2017. Proceedings and conclusions of a workshop on biodiversity data sharing and sovereignty. Landcare Research Contract Report LC2792. 23 p.** **OBJECTIVES** New Zealand’s Biological Heritage National Science Challenged contracted Landcare Research to hold a national workshop with the aims of: • contributing to national initiatives relating to data stewardship, with a focus on the complex issues surrounding biodiversity data collected on private land, including Māori land • pulling together the ‘best national team’ to develop a proposal to the Challenge on this topic that links to other Challenge-funded efforts
##Leading with courage and integrity in the National Science Challenges## **Byrom, A. E., Airey, A. T., Buwalda, J. G., Clarkson, B. D., McGlinchy, A. T., O’Callaghan, M., … Mark-Shadbolt, M., (Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Porou, Te Arawa, Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Raukawa, Rangitane, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Whakatohea). (2024). Leading with courage and integrity in the National Science Challenges. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2024.2438138** **December 2024** **ABSTRACT** National Science Challenges (NSCs) were a decade-long science policy experiment for Aotearoa New Zealand. The leadership skills required to uphold the mission-led intent, build trust with stakeholders, support transdisciplinary research and invest in Māori knowledge have not previously been explored. We identify 15 elements of leadership common to NSCs, with a focus on New Zealand’s Biological Heritage Ngā Koiora Tuku Iho (BioHeritage). We draw parallels with global efforts to modernise contemporary science policy instruments to derive value from public investment in research, science and innovation and to value Indigenous knowledge as a critical contributor to addressing complex environmental crises. We conclude with 10 recommendations for the future of the Research, Science & Innovation (RS&I) sector in Aotearoa. Implementing the recommendations would ensure that leadership capability and capacity built by NSCs endures for the benefit of future generations of researchers, Indigenous knowledge holders, society and the environment.
PAPER: Leading with courage and integrity in the National Science Challenges
###SO1: A biological heritage scorecard for Aotearoa### **November 2019** **Payne P, Reid J, Edwards ED, Binny R, Chambers J, Mahuta R, Wallace K, Uys R 2019. Strategic Outcome 1: A Biological Heritage Scorecard for Aotearoa New Zealand Scoping Panel report. BioHeritage Scoping Report. 23 p.** **ABSTRACT** Throughout 2019 we embarked on a scoping process that figured out where to target research for impact for the next five years, in both National Science Challenge and Ngā Rākau Taketake investments. This process brought together people from all walks of life who had in common a drive to collaborate and to see real change for our biological heritage. Ten teams focused on nine areas – identifying what would deliver the most on-the-ground impact, what had previously been underfunded, and what sectors just needed more cohesion to start tracking in the right direction. Their recommendations were distilled into the BioHeritage investments.
###SO2: We empower New Zealanders to demand and enact environmental stewardship and kaitiakitanga### **November 2019** **Allen W, Ataria J, Finlay-Smits S, Hakopa H, Highwary M, Smith V, Jebson M, Kerr GN, Buckley HL, Edge KA and others 2019. Strategic Outcome 2: Empowering Kaitiakitanga & Environmental Stewardship Scoping Panel Report. BioHeritage Scoping Report. 21 p.** **ABSTRACT** Throughout 2019 we embarked on a scoping process that figured out where to target research for impact for the next five years, in both National Science Challenge and Ngā Rākau Taketake investments. This process brought together people from all walks of life who had in common a drive to collaborate and to see real change for our biological heritage. Ten teams focused on nine areas – identifying what would deliver the most on-the-ground impact, what had previously been underfunded, and what sectors just needed more cohesion to start tracking in the right direction. Their recommendations were distilled into the BioHeritage investments.
#Ngā Koiora Tuku Iho - Biological Heritage National Science Challenge - Lifetime Summary# Our prosperity and wellbeing depend on the biological heritage of Aotearoa New Zealand. However, that unique natural heritage is at risk from invasive organisms and from new threats emerging in a rapidly changing global environment. Established in 2014 to tackle one of the most pressing problems facing Aotearoa New Zealand, the Biological Heritage National Science Challenge had the Governmentmandated (Gazetted) objective to ‘Protect and manage New Zealand’s biodiversity, improve our biosecurity, and enhance our resilience to harmful organisms’. This report is a demonstration of how we have addressed this Gazetted Objective. What follows is a selection of our research chievements from the decade of investment, and examples of how by ‘doing science differently’ we’ve made a real impact. With New Zealand facing growing biosecurity threats and biodiversity loss, we propose key recommendations for the science sector on what should happen next.
###SO6 - We quantify social ecological linkages for use in managing, protecting and restoring ecosystems### **November 2019** **Tylianakis JM, MacIntosh A, Jackson AM, Shanahan DF, Clapcott J, Lyver PO, Cullen R, Sevicke-Jones G, Holborow J, Wilson K and others 2019. Strategic Outcome 6: Social-Ecological Resilience. BioHeritage Scoping Report. 21 p.** **ABSTRACT** Throughout 2019 we embarked on a scoping process that figured out where to target research for impact for the next five years, in both National Science Challenge and Ngā Rākau Taketake investments. This process brought together people from all walks of life who had in common a drive to collaborate and to see real change for our biological heritage. Ten teams focused on nine areas – identifying what would deliver the most on-the-ground impact, what had previously been underfunded, and what sectors just needed more cohesion to start tracking in the right direction. Their recommendations were distilled into the BioHeritage investments.
###Diversity of backgrounds and world views are crucial for effective conservation outcomes### **January 2022** **ABSTRACT** The Options Development Group convened by the Department of Conservation has proposed a set of recommendations that, if enacted, are predicted to improve biodiversity outcomes while moving our conservation system towards one of Treaty partnership. This policy brief provides independent scientific advice pertaining to the context surrounding those recommendations.
BRIEF: Diversity is crucial for effective conservation outcomes
###An early career perspective on encouraging collaborative and interdisciplinary research in ecology### **October 2019** **Pannell JL, Dencer-Brown AM, Greening SS, Hume EA, Jarvis RM, Matieu C, Mugford J, Runghen R 2019. [An early career perspective on encouraging collaborative and interdisciplinary research in ecology](https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ecs2.2899). Ecosphere 10(10): e02899.** **Abstract** There is a growing need for collaborative and interdisciplinary research in addressing global ecological challenges, and early career researchers (ECRs) often play a vital role in such ventures. But despite the desire for such approaches, forming new and interdisciplinary collaborations is risky, and disproportionately so for ECRs, whose perspectives on this topic are rarely heard. Here, we present common perceptions among ECRs regarding opportunities for intra- and interdisciplinary collaboration, and barriers preventing such collaboration from taking place. We also discuss possible solutions, and the ecological outcomes of fostering more collaboration. The perceptions discussed have been distilled from a two-day workshop in New Zealand, aiming to investigate the potential for collaboration between 34 ECRs in distinct ecological disciplines across ten research institutes. Commonality in methodology or research aims was vital for potential collaborations to be considered worthwhile, but differences in spatial or temporal scales were a key disconnect that hindered numerous potential crossovers. Individual connectivity and institutional structures were commonly perceived as barriers to acting collaboratively in general. Specifically, barriers included having a small peer network, lack of access to funding, and concerns over the risk/reward ratio of forming new collaborations. Overcoming barriers will require active, practical support from institutions, funding bodies and mentors, and participants commonly called for specific funding support and the creation of ECR-focused spaces to better foster collaborative behavior. Fostering interdisciplinary ECR collaborations in ecology was perceived to be useful in creating larger and more useful datasets and tools, and more scalable and transferable models and outcomes. Adopting practices that facilitate more ECR-led interdisciplinary collaboration will help generate a more integrative understanding of ecological systems globally. **KEYWORDS** collaboration; early career; interdisciplinary; networking; New Zealand; research; workshop
###Crazy & Ambitious 4 - 2024 Playlist### **April 2024** A playlist of presentations given at New Zealand's Biological Heritage Science Challenge conference, Crazy & Ambitious 3. 24 - 27 May 2022, at Te Papa, Wellington and online.
###Science Board Decision Letter November 2018### **November 2018** Letter from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment regarding the renewed funding for Ngā Koiora Tuku Iho New Zealand’s Biological Heritage National Science Challenge.
###Data Commons Blueprint### **April 2017** **Mansell J, R. Laking, B. Matheson, and R. Light. 2017. Data commons blueprint. Data Commons Project. 96 p.** **EXECUTIVE SUMMARY** The central challenge is trust. Data integration and reuse at scale can create significant value for all parties – data contributors, and data reusers – but only if people can create and maintain a high-trust relationship in regard to the transactions they are participating in.
###Collective action is needed to build a more just science system### **June 2023** **Rayne A, Arahanga-Doyle H, Cox B, Cox MP, Febria CM, Galla SJ, Hendy SC, Locke K, Matheson A, Pawlik A, Roa T, Sharp EL, Walker LA, Watene K, Wehi PM, Steeves TE. 2023. [Collective action is needed to build a more just science system](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01635-4.pdf). Nat Hum Behav 7(7): 1034-1037.** **ABSTRACT** The current science system is unjust — from the systems that determine its membership to its outputs and outcomes. We advocate for contextually responsive, collective action to build a more just science system that demonstrates a relational duty of care to all its participants. To achieve this, we urge the science community to harness the powerful processes of complexity with deliberate intent. Science has been described as promoting exclusion and oppression by rewarding those who practice entrenched norms, including individualism, hypercompetition and productivism, and penalizing those who challenge them. Today, these norms permeate the design of scientific institutions and funding — reified in overt hierarchies and short-term funding cycles that disincentivize participatory and collaborative approaches. **KEYWORDS** Careers; Complex networks; Institutions; Interdisciplinary studies; Science, technology and society
PAPER: Building a more just science system
The Te Reo translation of our 2022 Highlights Report is filled with stories of how each of our research teams are creating real impact on the ground.
Our research projects and science teams are focused on at least one of five impacts to deliver benefits for New Zealand. The impacts fall under three programmes: 1. Assessing our biological heritage 2. Reducing risks and threats 3. Sustaining and restoring ecosystems
###SO5 (BORDER) - We deploy novel tools, technologies & strategies for control or eradication of biotic threats at the border### **November 2019** **ABSTRACT** Throughout 2019 we embarked on a scoping process that figured out where to target research for impact for the next five years, in both National Science Challenge and Ngā Rākau Taketake investments. This process brought together people from all walks of life who had in common a drive to collaborate and to see real change for our biological heritage. Ten teams focused on nine areas – identifying what would deliver the most on-the-ground impact, what had previously been underfunded, and what sectors just needed more cohesion to start tracking in the right direction. Their recommendations were distilled into the BioHeritage investments you see today.
###General Communications and Key Messages for our 2019 Scoping Process### The what, when, where how and why of our 2019 scoping process. Operational/guidance document.
SUMMARY: Key Messages for 2019 Scoping Process
Our 2022 Highlights Report is filled with stories of how each of our research teams are creating real impact on the ground. A [Te Reo version is also available](https://data.bioheritage.nz/dataset/bioheritage-challenge/resource/bb66e6fc-abd7-467b-94d8-dbf9d3221777)
###Bridging the Research-Practice Gap### **June 2024** This brief presents the experiences of three Knowledge Brokers contracted by New Zealand’s Biological Heritage Science Challenge. The perspectives of Kaiārahi (Knowledge Broker Māori) are not included here as their roles, while complimentary, merit separate reflection. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34721/nqyk-7978
The BioHeritage National Science Challenge, Te Tira Whakamātaki and Bioprotection Aotearoa are pleased to co-host a webinar on the recently released Intergovernmental Platform on the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Assessment of Sustainable Use of Wild Species. October 2022 **Facilitator:** Aroha Te Pareake Mead (BioHeritage National Science Challenge, Te Tira Whakamātaki Kāhui, Bioprotection Aotearoa). **Introduction to IPBES:** Bonnie Myers (IPBES Secretariat). **Panellists:** Marla R. Emery (Co-Chair of IPBES Sustainable Use of Wild Species Assessment, Adjunct Professor at University of Vermont, Scientific Advisor at the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research) will give an overview of the Sustainable Use Assessment. Dilys Roe (Chair of the IUCN Specialist Group on Sustainable Use and Livelihoods) will speak to implications for the Sustainable Use Assessment Report in the conservation sector. **Discussant:** Amanda Black (Bioprotection Aotearoa). ###To view **[PLEASE CLICK ON THIS YOUTUBE LINK](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg-JHd55pPw)**###
WEBINAR: IPBES Assessment of Sustainable Use of Wild Species
###Learning from a National Science Challenge### **March 2024** Biodiversity and biosecurity research helps to sustain a thriving environment, economy and society. But researchers and research programmes are often hindered by resourcing, institutional silos, and hypercompetition One experimental approach to address these issues was New Zealand’s National Science Challenges (NSC). Using publications, reporting, and interviews from the Biological Heritage NSC, we identify key learning about building large-scale collaborative research programs for enduring societal and environmental benefit. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34721/9881-d776
BRIEF: Learning from a National Science Challenge
###New Zealand ecosanctuaries: types, attributes and outcomes### **May 2019** **Innes J, Fitzgerald N, Binny R, Byrom A, Pech R, Watts C, Gillies C, Maitland M, Campbell-Hunt C, Burns B 2019. [New Zealand ecosanctuaries: types, attributes and outcomes](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/03036758.2019.1620297?needAccess=true). Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 49(3): 370-393.** **ABSTRACT** We define an ecosanctuary in a New Zealand context as ‘a project larger than 25 ha implementing multi-species, pest mammal control for ecosystem recovery objectives, and with substantial community involvement’. We present attributes of 84 projects meeting this definition, including three lacustrine islands, 16 marine islands, seven ring-fenced ecosanctuaries, seven peninsula-fenced ecosanctuaries and 51 unfenced mainland ecosanctuaries. Ecosanctuaries have biological and social objectives, and some have returned threatened, previously extirpated taxa to the New Zealand mainland. Increasingly, these intensively managed sites are being embedded in human-altered landscapes with low levels of pest control – a ‘core and buffer’ system. Most community groups that establish ecosanctuaries lack the technical expertise, resources and mandate to undertake regional or national prioritisation. There is a strong need for agency leadership of this, and to develop best practice pest control, pest monitoring and biodiversity outcome monitoring tools, as goals for national restoration of biodiversity rapidly expand. **KEYWORDS** New Zealand ecosanctuaries; sanctuaries; ecosanctuary origins; biodiversity outcomes; pest-fences; pest control; stoats; ship rats; brushtail possums
PAPER: NZ ecosanctuaries: types, attributes and outcomes
###Climate‐change impacts exacerbate conservation threats in island systems: New Zealand as a case study### **February 2021** **Macinnis‐Ng C, McIntosh AR, Monks JM, Waipara N, White RSA, Boudjelas S, Clark CD, Clearwater MJ, Curran TJ, Dickinson KJM, Nelson N, Perry GLW, Richardson SJ, Stanley MC, Peltzer DA. 2021. [Climate‐change impacts exacerbate conservation threats in island systems: New Zealand as a case study](https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2285). Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 19(4): 216-224.** **ABSTRACT** Rapid advances in eradicating invasive species from islands are improving conservation outcomes in these biodiversity hotspots. However, recent conservation gains could be reversed not only by future invasions from non-native species but also by future extinctions of native taxa, both of which may be facilitated by – or exacerbated by interactions among drivers of – global environmental change. We highlight relevant knowledge gaps that must be filled to reduce uncertainty about the ecological effects of future climate change. We use Aotearoa New Zealand as a case study of island ecosystems to demonstrate that in addition to sea-level rise, most ecologically meaningful impacts of climate change on biodiversity responses are indirect and due to exacerbation of existing threats, including the impact of invasive species as well as the loss and fragmentation of habitat. We identify key topics where progress is needed to future-proof conservation management for island ecosystems susceptible to the direct and indirect effects of climate change. **KEYWORDS** Climate change; Conservation threats; Island systems; New Zealand; Invasive species; Biodiversity; Ecological effects; Sea-level rise; Habitat loss; Fragmentation
PAPER: Climate‐change exacerbates conservation threats
###Co-designing a research programme for impact - doing science differently### **March 2024** BioHeritage’s mission is to reverse the decline of New Zealand’s biological heritage, through a national partnership to deliver a step change in research innovation, globally leading technologies, and community and sector action. Collective input from many participants with diverse knowledge systems is necessary to achieve such a large mission so in 2019, BioHeritage convened 11 scoping groups of 8 to 10 people including Māori partners, researchers, stakeholders, and end-users from a diverse range of organisations to co-design a set of goals and impact pathways for a nationwide strategy of research in the biodiversity and biosecurity sectors. An EOI process was held to select participants with 237 applications received from 64 organisations. People took part as individuals, not representing organisations, and brought input from their wider networks. We paid people for their time so they could devote attention, and recognised that this sort of input doesn’t come for free.
#Biological Heritage National Science Challenge# ##Our Mission## *Reverse the decline of New Zealand's biological heritage, through a national partnership to deliver a step change in research innovation, globally leading technologies and community and sector action.* New Zealand’s Biological Heritage National Science Challenge was allocated $63.7 million of this to facilitate research and impact in the areas of biosecurity and native biodiversity. We are hosted by the Crown Research Institute Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, with our offices in Lincoln, just south of Christchurch. This was to fund research from 2014 – 2024, with a review period at the end of ‘Tranche 1’ (2014 – 2019).
###Crazy & Ambitious 2 - 2019 Playlist ### **May 2019** A playlist of presentations given at New Zealand's Biological Heritage Science Challenge conference, Crazy & Ambitious 2. 20 - 21 May 2019, Te Papa Wellington.
###SO3: We anticipate both emerging and latent biosecurity risks and avoid new or recurring invasions### **November 2019** **Tait A, Stanley MC, Percy H, Bassett I, Marsh A, Teulon D, Badland S, Dyck M, Reed C, Garvey PM 2019. Strategic Outcome 3: We anticipate both emerging and latent biosecurity risks and avoid new or recurring invasions. BioHeritage Scoping Report. 23 p.** **ABSTRACT** Throughout 2019 we embarked on a scoping process that figured out where to target research for impact for the next five years, in both National Science Challenge and Ngā Rākau Taketake investments. This process brought together people from all walks of life who had in common a drive to collaborate and to see real change for our biological heritage. Ten teams focused on nine areas – identifying what would deliver the most on-the-ground impact, what had previously been underfunded, and what sectors just needed more cohesion to start tracking in the right direction. Their recommendations were distilled into the BioHeritage investments.
###Crazy & Ambitious 3 - 2022 Playlist### A playlist of presentations given at New Zealand's Biological Heritage Science Challenge online conference, Crazy & Ambitious 3. 24 - 27 May 2022. This event also featured the second Kaurilands Summit.
A one page summary of a report on a survey of Crown policies, programmes, legislation, funding, and impact assessment relating to mātauranga Māori.
SUMMARY: When the Crown Controls Mātauranga
###Crazy & Ambitious 2017 - Playlist### **May 2017** A playlist of presentations given at New Zealand's Biological Heritage Science Challenge inaugural conference, Crazy & Ambitious. 8-10 May 2017, Te Papa Wellington
###SO5 (POST-BORDER): We deploy novel tools, technologies & strategies for control or eradication of biotic threats after the border### **November 2019** **Hutching S, Lester PJ, Beavan B, Curtis R, Nock V, Warburton B, Meade A, Williams E, Vye S, Hill G 2019. SO5 – Tools, technologies & strategies (post border). BioHeritage Scoping Report. 16 p** **ABSTRACT** Throughout 2019 we embarked on a scoping process that figured out where to target research for impact for the next five years, in both National Science Challenge and Ngā Rākau Taketake investments. This process brought together people from all walks of life who had in common a drive to collaborate and to see real change for our biological heritage. Ten teams focused on nine areas – identifying what would deliver the most on-the-ground impact, what had previously been underfunded, and what sectors just needed more cohesion to start tracking in the right direction. Their recommendations were distilled into the BioHeritage investments.
Ngā mirumiru hei whakaora i ngā roto: Oxygen nanobubbles as a lake restoration tool August 2024
REPORT: Oxygen nanobubbles as a lake restoration tool
###New Zealand's Biological Heritage National Science Challenge | Ngā Koiora Tuku Iho Strategy Summary 2019- 2024### DOI: https://doi.org/10.34721/rwns-ek77
###Biological Heritage Submission to Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways Green Paper ### **March 2022** **ABSTRACT** This document provides the New Zealand Biological Heritage National Science Challenge, Ngā Koiora Tuku Iho (BioHeritage Challenge), collective Challenge response to the Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways Green Paper (Green Paper). Operational/guidance document.
SUMMARY: BioHeritage submission for Te Ara Paerangi
###Lessons from the BioHeritage National Science Challenge### **May 2024** New Zealand’s National Science Challenges (NSCs) were created as experiments in ‘mission-led’ research to reduce competition and address national-scale challenges. The end of the NSCs in June 2024 presents a critical opportunity to evaluate what did (or didn’t) work. This brief focuses on the Biological Heritage NSC. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34721/4mfr-1k23
###SO4: We have state-of-the-art biosecurity surveillance systems### **November 2019** **Kean JM, McCarthy J, Wood W, Browne C, Grant A, Inglis G, Ratana K, Gill G, Murray L 2019. SO4: We have state-of-the-art biosecurity surveillance system. BioHeritage Scoping Report. 17 p.** **ABSTRACT** Throughout 2019 we embarked on a scoping process that figured out where to target research for impact for the next five years, in both National Science Challenge and Ngā Rākau Taketake investments. This process brought together people from all walks of life who had in common a drive to collaborate and to see real change for our biological heritage. Ten teams focused on nine areas – identifying what would deliver the most on-the-ground impact, what had previously been underfunded, and what sectors just needed more cohesion to start tracking in the right direction. Their recommendations were distilled into the BioHeritage investments.
###Current knowledge and potential impacts of climate change on New Zealand's biological heritage### **January 2021** **Keegan LJ, White RSA, Macinnis-Ng C. 2022. [Current knowledge and potential impacts of climate change on New Zealand's biological heritage](https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/3467.pdf). New Zealand Journal of Ecology 46(1).** **ABSTRACT** While global climate change is impacting biota across the world, New Zealand’s maritime climate is highly variable and relatively mild, so climate change is sometimes seen as a minimal threat to species and ecosystems especially in comparison to the more immediate threat of invasive species. However, climate change will alter rainfall patterns, increase the incidence and severity of extreme events, and gradually increase temperatures which will all modify terrestrial, freshwater, and marine systems. Our comprehensive review of reported climate change impacts in New Zealand indicates that most measured impacts to date are due to indirect impacts (such as exacerbation of invasive species impacts) and most are in the marine realm. Ocean acidification and marine heatwaves are particularly problematic for calcareous organisms and algae respectively. Other notable impacts include thermal squeeze in the alpine zone and impacts of drought on freshwater fish. Very small populations of rare and threatened species can be very vulnerable to extreme events (e.g. fire, floods). While the evidence for climate change impacts is sparse in some regions and for some ecosystems, we encourage ongoing monitoring to identify processes of decline that may need to be mitigated. We identify five key research needs to improve our understanding of the threat of climate change to the biodiversity of Aotearoa New Zealand. **KEYWORDS** biodiversity, extreme events, global change, global warming, invasive species, ocean acidification, sea level rise
PAPER: Climate change impact on NZ biological heritage
###BioHeritage Full Strategy 2019 - 2024### **July 2019** Our emphasis for 2019 to 2024 is to actively lead better and faster pathways from science discovery through to delivering impacts at regional or national scales. By ‘impact’ we mean a set of final, long-term effects or benefits in a value chain. A rich array of talents are needed to better understand and manage our biological heritage and deliver impact, but many science and research efforts in New Zealand have increasingly become fragmented. For example, our Challenge Parties identified c. $179M of research over 3 years representing >700 research projects or programmes aligned with the Mission of our Challenge. However, this diverse effort has lacked overall cohesion and focus, in part because it has never been harnessed in a strategic framework to deliver measurable benefit for New Zealand.
###SO7 - We enable people to build biological heritage resilience with the right policy and governance instruments### **November 2019** **Kaine G, Bargh M, Rudge J, Porou T, Greenhalgh S, Challies E, Peart R, Boston J, Berg N, Johnson A and others 2019. Strategic Outcome 7: Governance and Policy. BioHeritage Scoping Report. 24 p.** **ABSTRACT** Throughout 2019 we embarked on a scoping process that figured out where to target research for impact for the next five years, in both National Science Challenge and Ngā Rākau Taketake investments. This process brought together people from all walks of life who had in common a drive to collaborate and to see real change for our biological heritage. Ten teams focused on nine areas – identifying what would deliver the most on-the-ground impact, what had previously been underfunded, and what sectors just needed more cohesion to start tracking in the right direction. Their recommendations were distilled into the BioHeritage investments
###Co-designing for research impact### **September 2020** **Duncan R 2020. Co-designing for research impact: lessons learned from practice in Aotearoa New Zealand. Co-designing for research impact. 86 p.** **SUMMARY** Aotearoa New Zealand’s mission-led National Science Challenges are expected to deliver research impact by connecting researchers, Māori partners, Stakeholders and end users to co-design and co-create research to respond to the country’s biggest and most complex issues. This report contributes to collaborative research theory and practice by examining key aspects of the co-design scoping process undertaken by New Zealand’s Biological Heritage National Science Challenge, Ngā Koiora Tuku Iho (the Challenge), to establish the foundations of its Strategy 2019–2024. Drawing on Challenge leadership and process participants’ reflections and experiences through 25 interviews, the research identifies what worked well and what did not work so well from multiple perspectives. This report identifies the practicalities, opportunities, and challenges of doing co-designand nine foundations for giving co-design the best chances of success, namely: 1. leadership commitment 2. financial resources 3. a realistic timeframe 4. organisational capacity 5. diverse, knowledgeable and experienced participants across researcher, tangata whenua and stakeholder/end user groups 6. clear values, rules of engagement and output expectations 7. power sharing 8. skilled facilitation 9. a well-designed process. Strengths of the process are identified as varying degrees of successful implementation of these foundations of co-design. Weaknesses are linked to governance of the Challenge which had substantive ramifications for its organisational capacity to undertake the co-design process and how it did so. While the Challenge was committed to taking a collaborative and strategic path to establish the foundations of its Strategy 2019-2014, it was doing so in the midst of unrealistic expectations about what it actually takes to meaningfully, respectfully and effectively do codesign and the flexibility required to shore up both internal and external credibility and legitimacy for the process, its inputs and outputs. This research raises important questions about the consequences of research policy reforms that are changing the rules of the game but not the governance structures that directly shape how, when, where and why co-design (and co-creation) are done. The report concludes with recommendations for both governing and doing co-design as well as further research to examine questions raised by this study.
REPORT: Co-designing for research impact