**Acknowledgements**

Ideally, six key features should be incorporated into conservation planning tools in order to plan effectively for ecosystems services [110, 147, 148]. First, a new tool should incorporate different features within a single network. Second, it should include the option that targets may not be met with available resources or within the planned region. Third, an ideal tool would account, spatially and temporally, for potential impacts of management and threats on species and services. Fourth, the tool would also account for the likeliness of conflicting management practices. Fifth, a tool must consider the flow from ecosystems to user. Last, a tool should allow for "flexibility between the ends of benefit maximisation and suitabilitymaximizing target achievement, which will each be appropriate for individual ecosystem

In reality, coming up with a model that balances all needs is complicated by uncertain data, conflicting needs at different spatial resolutions, and the need to consider costs. There are currently two approaches to ecosystem service assessments. The first uses a broad-scale assessment of multiple services to extrapolate a few estimates of values, based on habitat types, at large spatial scales (including global assessments) [1, 150–152]. In contrast, in the second approach ecosystems services are assessed at the production level of a single service within a small area. Although this approach is more reliable than the first, it lacks both scope (number of services) and scale (geographic and temporal) to be relevant for most policy decisions. What is needed is an approach that is ecologically relevant and appropriate to the scale of land-

Some studies have found a decline in the congruence between species richness of different higher taxa at higher spatial resolution [153, 154]. Such findings lead to the question – what is the 'ideal' spatial resolution to outweigh the benefits and costs of loss of biodiversity? It is obvious that management agreements should reflect the spatial scale of the biological proc‐ esses that are important, but the challenge remains how best to fit this into the various legislative processes. Conservation planning for biodiversity has traditionally tended to adopt a vertical integration of governance to national scales [155, 156]. The emphasis on vertical integration stems from the nature of the spatial turnover in biodiversity, which is not neces‐ sarily the case in all ecosystem services (e.g. carbon storage). For ecosystems services, different relationships exist at different scales [19]. Though in general, investing in conservation that increases the value of ecosystems services is also beneficial for biodiversity [15, 64], policy should be underpinned by science that highlights the many roles biodiversity has in ecological

Currently, too little is known about the ecological interactions (including role of biodiversity) in major productive landscapes and about the economic value of the ecosystem services on which they rely or which they potentially provide. To address this lack of knowledge there is a need to adopt an ecological approach to current management. Crop and livestock production systems must be managed as ecosystems, with management decisions fully aware of environ‐ mental costs and benefits. Actively managing productive systems for both biodiversity protection and productivity could result in the delivery of multiple services. Many biodiversity management actions can result in multiple benefits. For example, maintaining invertebrate diversity in soils promotes fertility, plant water use efficiency, and increased carbon storage [157].Creative science should provide multiple options and a sound basis for decision.

services in different circumstances".

18 Biodiversity - The Dynamic Balance of the Planet

management decisions.

processes at different scales

This work was supported by the National Land Resource Centre and Landcare Research. We particularly thank Chris Muckersie for useful comments on an earlier draft of the chapter and Anne Austin for editing.
