chapter 6 - managing the threats to australia’s biodiversity · 216 6.2 indicators the relevant...

Assessment of

Australia’s Terrestrial Biodiversity

2008

Chapter 6 Managing the threats to Australia’s biodiversity

These pages have been extracted from the full document which is available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/terrestrial-assessment/index.html

© Commonwealth of Australia 2009

This work is copyright. It may be reproduced for study, research or training purposes subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgement of the source and no commercial usage or sale. Reproduction for purposes other than those above requires written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the:

Disclaimer The then National Land and Water Resources Audit’s Biodiversity Working Group had a major role in providing information and oversighting the preparation of this report. The views it contains are not necessarily those of the Commonwealth or of state and territory governments. The Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to or as a consequence of anything contained herein.

Cover photographs: Perth sunset, aquatic ecologists Bendora Reservoir ACT, kangaroo paw: Andrew Tatnell. Ecologist at New Well SA: Mike Jensen

Editor: Biotext Pty Ltd and Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

213

Chapter 6 Managing the threats to Australia’s

biodiversity

214

At local, regional, state/territory, national and international levels, Australian

governments are implementing a broad range of policies and programs designed to

address major threats to biodiversity and arrest the decline in threatened species and

ecological communities. Individuals, community groups, non-government organisations

and industry groups are also increasingly engaged and active in addressing these threats.

A number of international strategies and policies are closely linked with Australia’s

biodiversity conservation (Table 6.1). They set a framework for much of Australia’s

whole-of-government response to threats to biodiversity across geographic boundaries.

Table 6.1 International policy with close links to biodiversity

Policy Date

International conventions and treaties covering wetlands and migratory birds (Ramsar, CAMBA, JAMBA and ROKAMBA)

Ramsar 197)

CAMBA 1986 (entered 1988)

JAMBA 1974 (entered 1981)

ROKAMBA 2006 (entered 2007)

International Convention on Biological Diversity 1992

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as CMS or Bonn Convention)

1979 (entered 1991)

CAMBA = China–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement; JAMBA = Japan–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement; ROKAMBA = Republic of Korea – Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

The key institutional responses examined in this Assessment are:

• policy and legislation

• protected areas (the national reserves system)

• management of at-risk biodiversity

• threat abatement

• conservation on private land, and

• regional natural resource management (NRM) arrangements.

6.1 Key findings

All jurisdictions have biodiversity policies and programs underpinned by legislative and other mechanisms.

Australia implements an extensive portfolio of policies and programs to manage and conserve biodiversity across the range of land tenures. These policies and programs are cast in strong governance and legislative frameworks.

National biodiversity policies and strategies are developed through cooperative arrangements among the jurisdictions.

Jurisdictions The states and territories vary in how they define threatened biodiversity

215

have different approaches to the management of threatened species and communities.

and how they respond. Some provide a regulatory framework for comprehensive listing and recovery of at-risk species and communities while in others threatened species and communities are not comprehensively protected nor provided with recovery planning under legislation. Queensland provides protection for at-risk communities under clearing laws but not under biodiversity protection laws.

The scale of the impacts from threatening processes to biodiversity requires a mix of responses.

A series of case studies representing a range of institutional responses revealed two particularly significant issues: a lack of effective and systematic monitoring systems for evaluation and limited resources invested in responses to threats compared with the scale and nature of the threats.

The scale of the impacts from threatening processes is such that the voluntary and uncoordinated approaches adopted to date will not be effective. Getting the mix of responses right will require levels of cooperation hitherto not fully demonstrated.

Reducing threats at a landscape scale is a major challenge but is essential to arresting decline.

The move to large-scale, multi-partner responses that take a systems approach and focus on ecological processes is an encouraging development.

The large-scale intensive threat abatement case studies can also provide key messages for landscape scale approaches in particular: building on, and integrating with existing programs; the need for cross tenure delivery; having well-designed monitoring and evaluation for adaptive management.

All Australian governments provide for conservation initiatives on private land.

Features of private land biodiversity conservation programs include: the use of economic instruments and incentive-based policies to achieve biodiversity objectives; incorporation of biodiversity conservation in whole-farm or property management plans; and bioregional and catchment planning.

We are progressing towards a CAR protected area system through the National Reserve System.

Protected areas with high levels of conservation management grew by 1.6 per cent from 2002 to 2006. This represents a substantial increase on the rate for the previous decade but still falls well below what would be required to meet a target of 10 per cent reservation for every bioregion by 2010. In 2006, 49 bioregions meet or exceed this target, while 36 fall below this level of protection. Five bioregions are highly unlikely to reach the target due to clearing and fragmentation of native vegetation.

By 2006, 11.6 per cent of Australia’s land mass was reserved in protected areas.

Valuing biodiversity will contribute to the long term maintenance of biodiversity.

Case studies reveal that, ultimately, the long-term future of biodiversity on private land will rely on land managers valuing the protection and maintenance of biodiversity.

Biodiversity conservation has benefited from the strengthening and consolidation of the regional delivery model for NRM.

The majority of regional organisations have built on a history of catchment planning to successfully develop a strong strategic basis for delivery of programs based on specific conditions and circumstances of the region.

The regional model provides for negotiated target setting that can operate within, but is relatively unimpeded by, an often highly contested and adversarial regulatory setting for biodiversity conservation. The resulting regional biodiversity targets are more likely to be understood, owned and accepted by the people who need to be engaged in biodiversity conservation on the ground, especially land-holders.

216

6.2 Indicators

The relevant indicators are shown in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Indicators

Indicator Current reporting capacity rating

Progress in building the National Reserve System

• Progress towards comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness (CAR) targets

Good for representativeness and comprehensiveness

Poor for adequacy

• Progress in instituting recovery plans Poor at national and state/territory levels

• Progress in managing threats

• Trends in major threats

Poor for national trends in threats

Good only at state/territory and case-study level

Progress towards conservation of biodiversity on private land

• Effectiveness of key institutional responses on private land

• Progress in industry engagement in biodiversity conservation

Moderate for general effectiveness of major programs

Good for industry engagement

Poor for biodiversity outcomes of conservation efforts on private land

Biodiversity outcomes of the regional investment model

Moderate at general level of systems and capacity building

Poor for biodiversity outcomes

Progress in addressing the threats of climate change

Poor nationally but building

6.3 Policy and legislation

The policy instruments for biodiversity management in the different jurisdictions are

summarised in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 Biodiversity policy in the Australian Government and states and territories

Jurisdiction Strategy Date

Australian Government

National Biodiversity Strategy 1996–2006

National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation 2001–2005

Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2020 Consultation Draft

The National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of Australia’s Native Vegetation (being revised in 2009)

Directions for the National Reserve System—A Partnership Approach

1996

2001

2009

1999

2005 – 2009

217

ACT ACT Conservation Strategy 1997 1997

Victoria Victoria Biodiversity Strategy 1997. A renewed biodiversity strategy is being developed during 2008–09 that will form a separate document to the white paper (see below).

A consultation paper Land and Biodiversity in a Time of Climate Change has been released for public comment. A white paper will be released in mid 2009.

1997

NSW New South Wales Biodiversity Strategy

Native Vegetation Management Act 2003

Native Vegetation Regulation 2005

1999

2003

2005

Queensland Nature Conservation Act

State Policy for Vegetation Management

Queensland Weeds Strategy 2002–2006

Queensland Biodiversity Framework 2003

Regional Nature Conservation Strategy for South East Qld 2003–2008

Wet Tropics Conservation Strategy 2004

ClimateSmart Adaptation 2007–2012

ClimateSmart 2050

Blueprint for the Bush 2006

1992

2006

2002

2003

2003

2004

2007

2007

2007

2006

Tasmania Nature Conservation Strategy 2002–2006

Nature Conservation Act 2002,

Threatened Species Protection Act 1995,

Forest Practices Act 1985,

Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement 1997,

Wetlands Strategy,

Permanent Forest Estate Policy

2003

SA No Species Loss — A Nature Conservation Strategy for South Australia 2001–2017

2007

WA A 100 Year Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Western Australia: Blueprint for the Bicentenary 2029

2006

NT Draft Northern Territory Parks and Conservation Masterplan 2005 (draft)

Integrated NRM Plan for the Northern Territory 2005

2005

2005

A number of important themes, strategic directions and mechanisms are more or less

common across the national and state/territory policies. These are listed below.

6.3.1 Themes

• Manage protected areas.

• Promote off-reserve conservation through management of risks and provision of

incentives.

218

• Provide special protection for at-risk biodiversity.

• Promote community awareness.

• Promote whole-of-government and cross-sectoral partnerships.

• Build knowledge and assess risks.

• Carry out bioregional planning.

6.3.2 Strategic directions

• Reverse the decline in extent and condition of populations and habitat of species and

communities.

• Improve preparedness for the impact of climate change.

• Enhance the National Reserve System.

• Integrated biodiversity conservation in management across the landscape (private and

public land).

• Invest in maintaining biodiversity and reducing future decline in high-value areas

(biodiversity-rich areas and at-risk species and communities).

• Improve knowledge of biodiversity value and conservation.

• Ensure secure engagement across all sectors of the community.

6.3.3 Mechanisms

• Negotiated partnerships, objectives and targets.

• Investment arrangements based on agreed outcomes and cost sharing, and monitoring

and evaluation of outcomes.

• Consistent whole-of-government regulation across all sectors that impact on

biodiversity, and long-term investment in recovery of listed species and

communities.

• Establishment of markets for conservation of biodiversity.

• Underpinning of programs with education and science.

• Regional and local-level planning and implementation.

• Flexible mechanisms to retain biodiversity (e.g. stewardship incentives, covenants,

tenders, voluntary agreements).

6.3.4 Legislation

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) was

developed by the Australian Government to provide for the protection of the

environment especially those aspects that are matters of national environmental

significance. It provides for listing and protection of nationally threatened species and

communities, and listing and abatement of threatening processes.

The states and territories, who have the major responsibility for biodiversity

conservation, are at various stages in developing or updating biodiversity protection

219

legislation and policy. In most jurisdictions (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland,

Tasmania), biodiversity policy is enacted through specific biodiversity legislation to

protect threatened species and communities, and through general environment protection

legislation that addresses development impacts. Most jurisdictions also have a range of

other legislation to manage biodiversity in specific areas (e.g. coastal management

legislation), or to address certain threats (e.g. clearing controls, pest and weed

regulations).

Today, all jurisdictions give high priority to biodiversity conservation. They vary

primarily in focus (e.g. on private or reserved land or both), in the emphasis given to

particular threats (e.g. clearing, invasive species, threatened species), and in the mix of

mechanisms for implementation of strategies (e.g. legislation, public awareness, funding

programs).

The trend in all jurisdictions and across the nation is towards increasing regulation of

threats to biodiversity and increasing consistency with Australian national policy and

objectives. In some aspects, such as native vegetation management and threatened

species/ecological communities, biodiversity emerges as a major theme driving policy.

6.4 Protected areas (National Reserve System)

The National Reserve System (NRS) is a cornerstone of Australia’s biodiversity

management response. The system of conservation parks and reserves, comprising

public, private and Indigenous Protected Areas, is the largest single investment in

biodiversity conservation.

The reserve system protects habitat, provides refuge for recovery of threatened species

and communities, links fragmented remnants of habitat across the landscape, raises

awareness and knowledge of biodiversity, links people with nature and earns revenue

from tourism.

Directions for a National Reserve System—A Partnership Approach (2005) is a national,

state and territory collaborative strategy for building the NRS. The Directions Statement

embodies the approach of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to

categorising protected areas based on the level of protection afforded, and the principles

of comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness (CAR) as targets for achieving

and measuring success.

• Comprehensiveness refers to the aim of including samples of the full range of

regional ecosystems recognisable at an appropriate scale within and across each

IBRA bioregion.

• Adequacy refers to how much of each ecosystem should be sampled at a

bioregional scale. The concept of adequacy incorporates ecological viability and

resiliency for ecosystems for individual protected areas and for the protected area

system as a whole.

• Representativeness is comprehensiveness considered at a finer scale (IBRA

subregion), and recognises that the regional variability within ecosystems is

220

sampled within the reserve system. One way of achieving this is to aim to

represent each regional ecosystem within each IBRA subregion.

Although differences in approaches to reservation targets in the different jurisdictions

remain, the Directions Statement is a step towards a nationally consistent approach for

setting and meeting priorities for reservation and for monitoring and evaluating progress.

(Note that in 2009, the Strategy for Australia’s National Reserve System 2009-2030 was

published (NRPPC 2009). Five-year implementation plans will focus on the

implementation of the Strategy in each jurisdiction.)

6.4.1 Extent and distribution of reserves

The NRS at 2002 and 2006 is shown in Figure 6.1.

Figure 6.1 National Reserve System in 2002 and additional properties in 2006

Source: CAPAD 2006; IBRA 6.1 DEWHA

Progress towards meeting objectives and targets for the NRS has been steady. Protected

areas increased in area by 1.6 per cent from 2002 to 2006.

This represents a substantial increase on the rate for the previous decade. By 2006, 11.6

per cent of Australia’s land mass was reserved in protected areas.

221

6.4.2 Progress towards CAR

Progress towards establishing a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR)

NRS system can be gauged from current reservation levels on a bioregional and

subregional basis, and progress towards meeting reservation targets. National reservation

targets focus on those outlined in the Protected Areas Programme of Work (PoW) under

the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which the Australian Government is a

signatory, and those agreed by all Australian governments in the Directions for the

National Reserve System— A Partnership Approach.

As of 2006, 49 bioregions meet or exceed this target, and 36 fall below this level of

protection (Figure 6.2).

The 10 per cent target is in reality not achievable in all bioregions, especially those

where substantial vegetation removal and modification have occurred (Figure 6.4). This

has happened predominantly in the agricultural zones, such as the Victorian Volcanic

Plain, Avon Wheatbelt, South East Coastal Plain, Naracoorte Coastal Plain and Victorian

Midlands, but also in areas under pressure from urban development, such as the Swan

Coastal Plain and South-east Queensland. Five bioregions and 54 subregions are highly

unlikely to reach this reservation target for these reasons.

Figure 6.2 Location of IBRA bioregions in the NRS with less than 10 per cent representation

Source: CAPAD 2006; IBRA 6.1 DEWHA

222

Figure 6.3 Governance of Protected Areas in the NRS 2006

Source: IBRA 6.1; NVIS AND CAPAD 2006 DEWHA

223

Figure 6.4 Native vegetation cover in IBRA regions and subregions

Native vegetation cover in IBRA regions and subregions

8

46

70 71

208

1 4

16 17

47

0

50

100

150

200

250

<10% 10 - 30% 30 - 60% 60 - 90% >90%

Percent Native Vegetation Cover

Num

ber

of re

gio

ns \ s

ubre

gio

ns

subregions

IBRA

Source: IBRA 6.1; NVIS AND CAPAD 2006 DEWHA

Although protected areas already cover more than 90 million hectares, an estimated

additional 27 million hectares would be required to meet the Convention on Biological

Diversity target, principally in Australia’s rangelands.

The Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council endorsed the reservation targets

in the NRS Directions Statement in 2005. They relate to examining reservation of native

ecosystems on a bioregional (IBRA) basis for comprehensiveness and on an IBRA

subregional basis for representativeness.

Reservation targets under the 2009 Strategy for the NRS are:

• Comprehensive: include examples of at least 80 per cent of all regional ecosystems in

each bioregion by 2015.

• Representative: include examples of at least 80 per cent of the number of regional

ecosystems in each subregion by 2025.

It is extremely difficult to quantify progress towards these ecosystem-based targets in a

meaningful way as we do not have an agreed national list of native ecosystems across

Australia or vegetation mapping to support such analyses. The problem is greatest for

bioregions that cross state and territory borders and therefore contain native ecosystems

that occur in one or two jurisdictions.

An overview has been developed from current state and territory vegetation mapping,

which relates to National Vegetation Information System (NVIS) Level 6

(http://www.environment.gov.au/erin/nvis/publications/avam/section-2-1.html), except

224

for New South Wales, which is based on other data because of the lack of coherent,

state-wide vegetation mapping. The analysis was undertaken through the National

Reserve System Scientific Advisory Subgroup, with input from the jurisdictions. The

proportion of native ecosystems found within each bioregion that was included in

protected areas was grouped into the following classes:

• nil

• very low: <10%

• low:11–50%

• medium: 51–80%

• high: >81% .

Relating these figures to real targets of 15 per cent of the pre-European extent of native

ecosystems is not possible because of the lack of detailed pre-European mapping of

native vegetation. This snapshot is therefore based on presence only data (i.e. the

presence of the ecosystem in the protected area, regardless of its extent or condition) for

protected areas, with care taken to remove any slithers that would skew the results.

Comprehensiveness

Direction 1—Examples of at least 80 per cent of the extant regional ecosystems in each IBRA region are to be represented in the NRS by 2010 to 2015

Progress towards this comprehensiveness target can be seen from Figure 6.5, where it is

evident that 45 of Australia’s 85 bioregions have low or very low ratings for

comprehensiveness, and only 11 bioregions meet the 80 per cent target (high). There are

few opportunities to improve this situation in five bioregions, given the past removal of

native vegetation.

225

Figure 6.5 Progress towards comprehensiveness in the NRS

Source: NRS Scientific Advisory Subgroup; DEWHA 2008

Representativeness

Direction 3—Examples of at least 80 per cent of the extant regional ecosystems in each IBRA subregion are to be represented in the NRS by 2010 to 2020

Progress towards the representativeness targets can be seen from Figure 6.6; 196 of

Australia’s 403 subregions have a low or very low rating. In 64 subregions, native

ecosystems have no representation in protected areas. Forty-six subregions meet the 80

per cent target. The Northern Territory, given the coarseness of much of its vegetation

mapping, did not wish to give a representativeness rating for the 61 IBRA subregions in

the jurisdiction. It is clear, however, that levels of representation of native ecosystems

are very low. Some 40 of the 61 IBRA subregions in the Northern Territory have less

than two per cent of their area in protected areas, including 28 with nothing in protected

areas. Six subregions have high levels of reservation and would most probably meet the

80 per cent target.

226

Figure 6.6 Progress towards representativeness in the NRS

Source: NRS Scientific Advisory Subgroup; DEWHA 2008

Adequacy

No adequacy measure has been developed that has been agreed nationally, although

progress has been made on developing a measure. The measure considers adequacy at a

subregional scale and includes the level of protection within a landscape context

necessary to provide for the ecological viability and integrity of populations, species and

ecological communities.

Summary of CAR

Bioregions with low levels of reservation are concentrated in central, northern and

western Australia. Relatively high levels of bioregional reservation do not necessarily

meet targets for comprehensiveness and representativeness. Low levels of

comprehensiveness are found throughout central and northern Australia, but high

priorities for increasing representativeness occur in relatively well-reserved bioregions in

southern Australia, in addition to large areas of the centre, north and west.

Setting priorities for reservation

The states and territories adopt the directions of the NRS Directions Statement but retain

other targets that may extend progress in some areas. The criteria and approaches for

assessing priorities for reservation are summarised in Table 6.4.

The selected jurisdictional case studies provide comprehensive assessments of progress

towards CAR based on reservation at June 2007. Table 6.5 provides a summary of

results.

227

State and territory analysis

While the states and territories employ different approaches for setting priorities and

progressing towards CAR, all jurisdictions adopt the following principles:

• IBRA bioregions and subregions as a geographic planning basis.

• IUCN categorisation for protected areas.

• CAR and targets for comprehensiveness and representativeness as adopted under the

NRS Directions statement.

228

Table 6.4 Setting priorities for reservation in the states and territories

Jurisdiction Targets Criteria and approaches

NT By 2020, a comprehensive, adequate and representative protected area system to have been developed (through successful negotiation with land-holders) and be cooperatively managed that includes:

• at least 15 per cent of the extent of all vegetation types (at 1:1 000 000 scale), and

• at least 90 per cent of all plant and vertebrate species native to the Northern Territory.

The masterplan combines criteria to show indicative areas of international and national significance for biodiversity conservation:

• concentration of threatened species

• concentrations of endemic and restricted-range species

• wetlands

• important aggregations of wildlife (migratory shorebirds, waterfowl, colonial seabirds, marine turtles), and

• sites of botanical significance.

WA 15 per cent of total area for each IBRA bioregion.

The appropriate level of protection and management to meet IUCN I-IV and the state and Australian Government agreed NRS criteria.

Qld 7.5 per cent of state in national parks by 2020, requiring addition of 5.3 million ha.

Further 20 million ha of protected areas by 2020, requiring additional 7.5 million ha of mostly privately covenanted land.

The representation of regional ecosystems in the Queensland Protected Areas Estate is the major surrogate used to assess progress towards CAR.

NSW Directions statement targets applied to extant NSW landscapes.

Target priority regions and ecosystems most in need of protection in the next 10 years determined through state-wide, regional and site-based studies. Assessment of properties that come on the market.

SA Directions statement targets. Targeted towards regions of low representation, including habitats that assist in the delivery of CAR reserve system. Significant biodiversity places, rare or threatened species and ecosystems, and endemic species and ecosystems. Priority is increased for species and ecosystems that are most vulnerable to loss. Properties within regions that contribute to buffering or linking core protected areas, habitats in fragmented landscapes (i.e. South East and Mid North regions) and wetlands and freshwater ecosystems are also priorities.

229

Vic Directions statement targets. The vast majority of recent additions to conservation reservation are from public land. These additions have been made following the recommendations of the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council. The council considers all public land values, including biodiversity conservation values, and undertakes substantial public and stakeholder consultation processes in developing its recommendations. Ecological vegetation classes (EVCs) are used as surrogates for ecosystems in assessment of proposed reservation against the nationally agreed criteria for establishing the CAR reserve system. Opportunities to progress towards CAR reservation on private land are limited. On private land, extension of the reserve system is addressed through consideration of properties that come onto the market. These are assessed against a set of CAR and other criteria.

Tas Directions statement targets, except for subregional representativeness; there are no subregions in Tasmania against which to report.

Priorities are poorly protected ecosystems as described in the Directions statement.

Table 6.5 Progress towards comprehensiveness and representativeness in the states and territories

Jurisdiction Progress towards CAR

NT The total extent of terrestrial protected areas in June 2007 was 12 1391 km2, 9.01 per cent of the land area. IUCN I-IV reserves

occupied 4.58 per cent, IPAs 3.87 per cent and private protected areas 0.34 per cent of this area.

The proportional area of IBRA regions in reserves ranges from 0 to 42.6 per cent. Of the 25 IBRA regions, 10 have more than 10 per cent of their area reserved (in the NT), and 11 have less than 1 per cent reserved. Five bioregions, each of which has the majority of its extent in other jurisdictions, have no area reserved within the NT.

The proportional area of IBRA subregions in reserves ranges from 0 to 98.0 per cent. Of the 61 subregions, 14 have more than 10 per cent and 38 have less than 1 per cent reserved. Twenty-six subregions have no area reserved within the NT, including some subregions occurring entirely within the NT.

Of the 112 vegetation types, 23 have more than 15 per cent of their area in reserves, while 57 have less than 1 per cent. Thirty-five vegetation types are not represented in any reserves.

WA Only two regions, Warren and Esperance Plains, have more than 50 per cent of their ecosystems adequately protected. The remainder of the state remains poorly represented overall with a number of regions where it is either impossible or unlikely that this situation can be rectified. These include the Swan Coastal Plain and Avon Wheatbelt.

Only five of the 54 subregions have greater than 50 per cent of their ecosystems adequately protected. These are again confined to the

230

south-west land division with the exception of the Carlisle subregion in the Nullarbor.

Qld Approximately 74 per cent of the currently mapped regional ecosystems are contained within reserves larger than 1000 ha in the Queensland Protected Areas Estate as at 28 March 2008. The 1000-ha criterion is considered to be an appropriate method of addressing the adequacy component of CAR.

NSW The reserve system occupies about 8.1 per cent of NSW. Of the 1056 NSW landscapes represented within the 18 IBRA regions, only 23 per cent have achieved the 15 per cent target for reservation.

Eleven subregions are not represented in the reserve system.

SA For the 56 IBRA subregions, protection ratings are high (12 subregions—21 per cent), medium (8 subregions—14 per cent), low (9 subregions—16 per cent), very low (8 subregions—14 per cent) and nil (19 subregions—34 per cent).

Vic Protected areas covered 3 828 266 ha or 16.82 per cent of the land area (CAPAD 2006). Of the 1128 BioEVCs (bioregional ecological vegetation communities, excluding those represented only in complexes, mosaics and aggregates), 80 per cent have some of their area reserved in IUCN category I-VI reserves (primarily category I-IV)). Of the 28 subregions, 20 have some area of at least 80 per cent of their EVCs in reserves, and the remainder have some area of at least 50 per cent of their EVCs in reserves.

Tas All bioregions have at least 80 per cent of the native ecosystems present in that bioregion represented within the reserves system. Six of the nine have 95 per cent or more of these ecosystems in CAPAD reserves. Most regions have the whole range of IUCN categories represented, with some exceptions. There are no category I reserves in West bioregion and no category II in Northern Midlands bioregion.

Twenty-eight TASVEG communities are considered to be poorly protected. These poorly reserved communities cover all threat categories (rare, vulnerable, endangered and non-threatened). This means that the adequacy requirement is not met.

231

Reservation since 2002

The states and territories assessed reservations in their respective jurisdictions since 2002 (to June 2007) to determine whether new

reservations were successfully targeting high priorities (as determined by the 2002 assessment or by state and territory processes) and areas

of low bioregional representation (Table 6.6).

Table 6.6 Reservations since 2002

Jurisdiction Reservations since 2002 Reservation priorities

NT The total area of CAPAD reserves increased by 56 490 km2,

an increase of 4.19 per cent of the land area in reserves. Mostly due to increase in IPAs.

The major additions between 2002 and 2007 were in bioregions listed as reservation priority 2 or 3 in the 2002 assessment. There was no additional reserve area in any bioregions identified as priority area 1.

WA Seven of the state’s 26 bioregions now have a level of protection in more than 15 per cent of their total area, a net increase of one from 2002 (two additional bioregions increased above 15 per cent, while one dropped below 15 per cent, presumably as a consequence of redistribution of the IBRA boundary).

The majority of the percentage change in the reserve area has occurred in the middle priority reservation classes (priority 3 and 4) of the 2002 assessment.

Reservation priorities have frequently been directed towards bioregions with the greatest levels of change from historic and current land use practices. These areas were not always identified as areas of highest priority in the 2002 assessment. Reservation is dependent on the availability of land, which is limited in some high-priority regions.

Qld Total reserve area increased by 295 000 ha.

There have been more than 125 additions, including 50 new national parks.

All additions have addressed at least one of the CAR elements, and many were in priority bioregions or subregions.

NSW Total reserve area increased by 780 000 ha.

Significant proportions of additions in bioregions have been in the lower protection levels of the reserve categories, mostly IUCN VI.

One top-priority region for NSW, the Brigalow Belt South bioregion, received additions that resulted in a 65 per cent increase in the reserved area. Changes across other regions ranged from 81 per cent increase (Riverina) to no increase (Broken Hill Complex).

SA Increased representation and/or level of protection in more Except for problems associated with cross-border IBRA regions and

232

than 28 of the 56 subregions identified within state borders.

Twenty new parks have been proclaimed into the reserve system, 22 parks have had additional land, and 27 have been reclassified at a higher level of protection. Almost another 110 000 ha has been purchased that is still to be proclaimed into the park system.

subregions, South Australia’s priorities reflect the 2002 priorities.

Vic Additional reservation of more than 195 000 ha distributed across 24 of the 28 Victorian subregions.

An analysis of NRS priority ranking against the proportionate increase in reservation for subregions in Victoria shows a very weak and not statistically significant correlation.

No priority regional ecosystems were identified for Victoria in the 2002 assessment. Therefore, this analysis cannot be completed for Victoria.

Tas Total area of CAPAD reserves increased by 181 900 ha.

The greatest actual increase (81 000 ha) was in priority 4 (West bioregion) of the 2002 assessment.

The greatest proportional increase (56 per cent) was in Tasmania’s only priority 1 bioregion, the Northern Midlands.

233

The selected case studies in this Assessment indicate that, although new reservations in

the period represent an important augmentation of the reserves system, they did not

necessarily target the highest bioregional priorities (Table 6.6), at least partly because of

the low availability of suitable land in the highest priority categories and the extent of

past modification in high-priority regions.

Key findings from the CAR analysis

Key findings from the CAR analysis are as follows:

• Australian governments are making progress towards a national CAR reserves

system.

• Not all recent additions target high-priority bioregions.

• Directions targets are difficult to achieve for some bioregions and subregions where

there has been extensive clearing and modification in the past.

• Targeting of land is constrained by the availability of land for reservation.

• Adequacy remains difficult to define and measure although the National Reserve

System Task Group is working to develop an effective measure.

• Significant types of threatened ecosystems and ecological communities are not yet

well represented in the reserves system (e.g. bluegrass grasslands—<1 per cent of

natural range; brigalow forests—around 1 per cent of natural range; mound springs).

• Notable examples of threatened species and communities are well protected in

reserves (e.g. cassowary).

•

6.5 Management of at-risk biodiversity

Identification, listing and recovery planning and action for at-risk biodiversity is a major

component of Australian institutional responses to threats. At national, state and territory

levels, all Australian government have measures in place that identify and afford higher

levels of protection for at-risk biodiversity.

The EPBC Act enables listing of threatened species, communities and threatening

processes. Following the 2006 amendments to the Act, it is no longer mandatory for

recovery plans to be prepared for listed species or communities.

The states and territories vary in how they define threatened biodiversity and how they

respond (Table 6.7). Some provide a regulatory framework for comprehensive listing and

recovery of at-risk species and communities (NSW, Victoria, ACT). In others, threatened

species and communities are not comprehensively protected nor provided with recovery

planning under legislation. Queensland provides protection for at-risk communities

under clearing laws but not under biodiversity protection laws.

The dispersed and patchy nature of threatened species and ecological communities adds

to the challenges in implementing recovery plans. Although reserving the relevant areas

of habitat and threatened communities is the most secure way to protect them under

current arrangements, their distribution and nature do not fit well with the protected areas

management model, which is based around discrete national parks and reserves.

234

Success in recovery of threatened taxa and communities is elusive, difficult to measure

and takes many years, if not decades, to achieve. Significant resources are required for

successful recovery of threatened species and communities. Overall resourcing, however,

has been inadequate and commonly short term. Development of recovery plans, and

particularly their implementation, lags well behind listing of threatened species and

communities.

As there is no consistent national monitoring system in place, it is difficult to

comprehensively assess the success of this important and widespread institutional

response.

Chapter 4 discusses the trends in listed species and communities with recovery plans in

place in more detail and provides supportive case studies.

235

Table 6.7 National, state and territory legislation to protect biodiversity

Jurisdiction Legislation Protection and recovery planning

Australia

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Enables listing of threatened species, communities, critical habitat and threatening processes. Recovery planning no longer required for all listed items (2006 amendment). Provides for abatement plans for threatening processes.

NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

Threatened Species Conservation Amendment Act 2002

Threatened species and endangered and vulnerable ecological communities can be listed. Recovery planning is required. Threatening processes can be listed.

Tas Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement 1997

Nature Conservation Act 2002

Forest Practices Act 1985

Only enables listing of threatened species. There are an agreed guidelines for the listing of threatened ecological communities. Threatened communities are listed under the Nature Conservation Act 2002.

The Regional Forest Agreement provides for listing of and recovery planning for threatened species.

The Forest Practices Act 1985 and attendant regulations provides controls over forest clearing and clearing of other vegetation such as listed communities. In addition a Tasmanian Government Policy for Maintaining a Permanent Native Forest Estate aims to maintain no less than 95 per cent of the extent of any forest community below the level at the time of the RFA Agreement.

Qld Nature Conservation Act 1992

Environmental Protection Act 1994

Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and

Management Act 1993 (Qld)

Integrated Planning Act 1997

Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Qld)

The Nature Conservation Act 1992 enables protected areas but also provides for listing of threatened species, critical habitat and threatening processes. Recovery planning is not specifically required under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and would normally only be in place if the species was also listed nationally under the EPBC Act.

Vic Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

Wildlife Act 1975

Planning and Environment Act 1987

The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 enables listing of threatened species, communities and threatening processes. Action plans are required for listed communities and threatening processes.

The Wildife Act 1975 identifies native vertebrate fauna and listed invertebrates as protected wildlife, and regulates, among other things, the taking or keeping of protected wildlife.

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 facilitates statutory planning through

236

which native vegetation clearing controls are administered.

ACT Nature Conservation Act 1980

Environmental Protection Act 1997

Enables listing of threatened species and ecological communities. One community is listed as endangered (<10 per cent pre-1750 extent), and an action plan has been developed.

NT Territory Parks and Wildlife Act 1977

Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000

Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Act 2006

Does not specifically list endangered species or communities. Dealt with through the reserves system.

SA National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 Provides for listing of threatened species. Has a provisional list of species. No provision for listing of threatened communities.

WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 Enables listing of threatened flora and fauna. Currently no legislation that deals specifically with threatened ecological communities.

Source: State and territory laws and government websites

237

6.6 Threat abatement

This Assessment commissioned a series of case studies (Table 6.8) to examine in detail

some major threat abatement programs under way across the nation.

Table 6.8 Case studies of threat abatement programs

Case study Jurisdiction/agency

Management of the threat posed by feral camels (Camelus

dromedarius) Northern Territory

Bounceback — ecological recovery in the semiarid rangelands of South Australia

South Australia

Victorian Ark fox control projects Victoria

Western Shield recovery program Western Australia

Impact of fox predation on fledging success of little terns and other shorebirds in New South Wales

New South Wales

Environmental water allocation and colonial breeding waterbirds on the Murray River

Victoria

Managing the environmental impacts of weeds on public land in Victoria

Victoria

Key findings from the seven selected case studies are:

• Cross-tenure delivery (park, forests, other Crown and private land) of programs to

abate threats is a necessity for landscape-scale approaches.

• A sound understanding of the biology and ecology of the target species and

communities is necessary for the design and evaluation of threat abatement

programs.

• Long-term investment is essential to control threats that extend and are well

established over vast areas.

• Partnerships, engagement and good communication with all key stakeholders will

contribute to the success of threat abatement programs.

• Integrating threat abatement programs and recovery actions for threatened species

and communities provides important opportunities to scale up and maximise

outcomes for biodiversity.

Case study 6.1 Management of the threat posed by feral camels (Camelus

dromedarius) (Edwards 2008)

Nature of the threat

Thousands of camels were imported into Australia, primarily from India, between 1840 and 1907

to assist in transport in arid regions. They now occur over 40 per cent of the Australian mainland,

mostly in the drier parts of Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and the Northern

Territory. There may be as many as one million feral camels, and the population is doubling in

size every eight years (Edwards et al 2004).

238

Feral camels have demonstrable environmental, economic and cultural impacts. Serious impacts

on vegetation are seen at densities greater than two camels per square kilometer (Dörges and

Heucke 2003). Camels already occur at this density, or greater, over much of their current range.

They severely defoliate and suppress the recruitment of some shrub and tree species, with

impacts being greatly exacerbated in drier years (Dörges and Heucke 2003). Some important

food plants traditionally harvested by Aboriginal people are also seriously affected by camel

browsing (Dörges and Heucke 2003).

Feral camels have a noticeable impact on fragile salt lake ecosystems (Dörges and Heucke 1995)

and foul waterholes, important sites for Aboriginal people and for native fauna. They are also

likely to destabilise dune crests (thereby contributing to erosion), damage stock fences and

infrastructure at cattle watering points (Short et al 1988), and represent an increasing hazard to

motorists on outback roads.

About the program

Current management is largely ad hoc and has little impact on populations overall. Management

falls into four categories: fencing off key areas, live wild harvest for commercial sale, culling for

pet meat, and culling to waste (both ground-based and aerial shooting).

In 2005, the Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre (DKCRC) obtained funding

through the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) for a 3-year project ‘Cross-jurisdictional management

of feral camels to protect NRM and cultural values’. The overall goal is to produce a practical

management plan to mitigate the impacts of feral camels, with a package of acceptable control

options and a business case to justify investment in camel management. The management plan

comprises five elements:

• evaluation of key stakeholder perceptions

• evaluation of the costs and benefits of feral camels

• evaluation of commercial approaches that could assist in the management of feral camels

• evaluation of the non-commercial approaches that are being used, or could be used, in

management, and

• development of a framework for cross-jurisdictional management.

The approach being taken in the DKCRC camel project is broadly consistent with Goal 3 of the

Australian Pest Animal Strategy, which outlines objectives and actions to be undertaken in the

management of established pest animals. Some of the states and territories have individual pest

animal strategies that cover feral camels. There may be a need for a national coordinator to

oversee the management of feral camels, at least in the short term.

Case study 6.2 Bounceback—ecological recovery in the semiarid rangelands of South Australia (De Preu 2008)

Nature of the threats

Since the mid-1800s, excessive grazing, weed infestation and introduced predators have

combined to damage the fragile environment of the semiarid regions of South Australia. As early

as 1900, many small to medium-sized mammals, and some birds and plant species, had all but

disappeared. Even when stock were removed from areas that were established as national parks,

threatened species continued to decline because there was little regeneration of native plant

communities or improvement in soil conditions and animal habitats.

239

About the program

In response, the Department for Environment and Heritage initiated the Bounceback ecological

restoration program in 1992 to protect the native species that had persisted in the region and

make it possible to reintroduce some species that had become locally extinct. Broad-scale threat

abatement programs for feral goats, rabbits and foxes have been implemented, with resulting

benefits for a diverse range of native plants and animals. Yellow-footed rock-wallaby

populations are a major focus for recovery through Bounceback’s activities. Many other species

have also responded to the threat abatement works, including threatened plant species such as the

spidery wattle and sandalwood, and endemic fauna species such as the Flinders Ranges short-

tailed grasswren.

A coordinated approach to management of total grazing pressure and reduction of introduced

predators has improved biodiversity in the Flinders, Olary and Gawler ranges in the semiarid

rangelands of South Australia.

Figure 6.7 Goat mustering under the Bounceback program

Photo by P Watkins

The threat abatement management actions have used a number of aproaches, including rabbit

control through warren destruction; fox baiting; and feral goat control through trapping,

mustering (Figure 6.7) and culling. Bounceback has an extensive monitoring and evaluation

program, which is divided into two main components: threat monitoring—where the status of the

threatening process or species is measured, including its response to management actions (e.g.

feral animal density, grazing pressure, pest plant infestation); and response monitoring—where

the response of the system or a species is measured to determine the effectiveness of on-ground

works.

There is an opportunity for the Bounceback program to be involved in implementing Naturelinks,

a major new initiative of the South Australian Strategic Plan, which aims to enable South

Australian species and ecosystems to survive, evolve and adapt to environmental change.

240

One of the reasons for the success of the Bounceback program has been the partnerships

developed with land-holders and the community to provide an integrated approach. Such an

approach will have the best chance of restoring fragmented ecosystems, controlling pest plants

and animals, and increasing the diversity of species found in the region.

Case study 6.3 Victorian Ark fox control projects (DSE 2008a)


The introduced red fox (Vulpes vulpes) represents a major threat to native biodiversity and has

been listed as a threatening process at the state (Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988) and

national (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) levels.

In Victoria, foxes inhabit all terrestrial habitats, from inner urban areas to alpine heathlands,

rainforest and the Mallee. They are highly mobile predators that are well established in bushland

areas. In Victoria, Bioregional Network analyses have identified 92 species of vertebrates for

which predation by foxes is a known or potential threat. These comprise 53 bird, 18 mammal, 19

reptile and two amphibian species (DNRE 2002). Ground-nesting birds and small to medium-

sized mammals weighing 35–5500 g are particularly threatened by foxes. Further spatial

modelling has identified where species at risk occur within national parks in Victoria (Robley et

al 2004).

About the program

Two major conservation initiatives—Southern Ark, established in East Gippsland in 2004, and

Glenelg Ark, established in south-west Victoria in 2005 (Figure 6.8)—aim to facilitate recovery

of native mammals, birds and reptiles through systematic and continuous fox control. Future

projects are proposed for other major public land areas, such as the Grampians and Mallee.

Figure 6.8 Victorian Ark project areas

The Victorian Ark fox control projects build on research and management programs in East

Gippsland and other parts of Australia (Burbidge and McKenzie 1989, Murray et al 2006), which

have shown that effective control of the red fox allows the recovery of a host of threatened

species. Fox control also paves the way for the reintroduction of other native species that have

become locally extinct (Short and Turner 2000, Richards and Short 2003). The evidence from

these earlier projects is that fox control programs need to be integrated, large scale, and ongoing

to be successful. Effective control of foxes may produce important collateral benefits for

241

adjoining agricultural enterprises, by improving livestock survival; and on ecosystem health,

through reinstating natural processes such as dispersal of hypogeal fungi, and impacts on soil

hydrology by native mammals (Garkaklis et al 1998, 2000).

The program uses extensive poison (1080) baiting over very large areas (1 million hectares in

Gippsland and 100 000 hectares in the south-west) and well-designed monitoring systems to

track effectiveness in reducing fox numbers and restoring biodiversity. The Ark projects are

overseen by a cross-agency steering committee and regional working groups, and include a focus

on communication and community engagement activities. This arrangement enables cross-tenure

delivery of the project (park, forest, other Crown and private land), a necessity for a landscape-

scale approach.

Outcomes for biodiversity

Monitoring the number of baits taken before and after the introduction of poison baits indicates a

substantial reduction in fox numbers following poisoning (Figure 6.9).

Figure 6.9 Poison baits taken before and after introduction of 1080

There have also been numerous social outcomes, including reports by visitors to Cape Conran of

seeing wild potoroos and bandicoots for the first time (more than 100 sightings sheets have been

submitted), and support from land-holders. Numerous volunteers have supported the project, and

private land-holders have laid baits on their land.

A comprehensive program to monitor the response of native mammals is under way for the Ark

projects, under supervision of scientists from the Arthur Rylah Institute. It is too early to detect

changes in site occupancy as a result of the Ark projects. In the first round of monitoring,

detection rates for small mammals were low. Other important factors, such as the impacts of

drought and fire, are likely to play an important role in predator–prey interactions, and their

effect may not be evident in the short term. However, initial results from the Cape Conran

(Southern Ark) pilot study and Glenelg Ark show that native mammals are beginning to respond

positively to the reduction in fox populations.

The Ark projects will provide further evidence for the scale, intensity, methods and timeframes

over which fox control programs need to operate. The intensive outcome-based monitoring

undertaken by Southern Ark has rarely been applied elsewhere and may serve as a useful model

in other jurisdictions. A major challenge for this and similar projects is maintaining the ongoing

commitment to program delivery and monitoring that is required to sustain any gains achieved.

242

The Victorian Ark projects foreshadow a new era of managing the threat of pests at an

appropriate scale (in this case, a much larger scale than was previously the case in Victoria),

across land tenures and in an ongoing way to achieve biodiversity outcomes. The projects have

established governance structures and operating environments that have enabled effective

implementation by a number of collaborating agencies and institutions. The project has managed

to achieve what it has by drawing on resources and funding of these agencies as resources

became available.

Case study 6.4 Western Shield recovery program (DEC 2008)


Over the past 100 years, Australia has experienced the greatest extinction and decline of

mammals in modern times anywhere in the world. This massive extinction and decline is almost

entirely confined to ‘critical weight range’ mammals, those that have a mean adult body weight

between 35 g and about 5500 g. Introduced predators, such as the fox and feral cat, have been

implicated as a major cause.

Western Australia has retained a greater number of threatened mammal species than most other

states. Some species (e.g. burrowing bettong) that are extinct on the mainland still occur on some

Western Australian islands, and several species that once occurred across southern Australia

remain only in the south-west of Western Australia. Other Western Australian animal species

have been affected by introduced predators and have declined—for example, ground-nesting

birds such as the Mallee fowl and western ground parrot, pythons such as the carpet python and

woma python, and reptiles such as the western swamp tortoise and western spiny-tailed skink.

About the program

Research by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has shown that, for many

species, effective control of the European red fox leads to a recovery of population numbers and

an increase in extant range. Predator control also allows the reintroduction of species into their

former range. The Western Shield Fauna Recovery Program aims to conserve extant threatened

fauna and to reconstruct the pre-European fauna suite on predominantly DEC-managed lands by

facilitating the recovery and reintroductions of native animals following broad-scale baiting

programs to reduce feral predator (primarily fox and cat) density.

Western Shield currently extends across much of Western Australia, from Esperance in the

south-east to Karratha in the north. The program includes national parks and forests of the south-

west, and numerous wheatbelt reserves, and encompasses an area of nearly 3.9 million hectares,

including around 300 000 hectares that are being baited in the rangelands for cat control research.

Introduced predator control operations are based on a network of identified fauna reconstruction

sites and species recovery sites. There is potential for the recovery of extant species within such

areas, and for reintroduction of locally extinct species into the areas, after the introduction of

effective feral predator control over a sufficiently large area. Western Shield currently has two

fauna breeding facilities and has undertaken more than 80 fauna translocations since 1996 to

species recovery sites and fauna reconstruction sites. For example, four species, including black-

flanked rock-wallaby, have been reintroduced to the Avon Valley to re-establish most of the

original mammal fauna known to have occurred in this area. Numbats have been released at Mt

Dale in the Perth hills; chuditch have been returned to Cape Arid National Park; quendas (also

243

known as southern brown bandicoots) were reintroduced to Dongolocking Nature Reserve in the

wheatbelt; woylies and malleefowl were reintroduced to Peron Peninsula as part of Project Eden

(a subprogram of Western Shield); and noisy scrub-birds have been released in the Darling

Range, where they were first discovered 150 years ago.


Western Shield has had astounding success, and native animal populations have begun to show

signs of recovery, with monitoring and trapping in baited areas showing increases in native

animal numbers and species. Figure 6.10 shows capture rates for medium-sized mammals in

Julimar Forest, 84 km north-east of Perth.

Successful recovery due to Western Shield and its precursors led to three mammal species, the

woylie, tammar wallaby and quenda, being removed from the state’s Threatened Species List by

1998. These species are listed as Conservation Dependent as they are still dependent on ongoing

fox control and other conservation measures to avoid being threatened with extinction.

Monitoring since 2001 has indicated that the largest and most important woylie populations

across the south-west have subsequently unexpectedly and rapidly declined in size. The

conservation status of this species is currently under review, and research is in progress to

identify the causes of the decline to aid in the recovery of the species.

Although fox control has been demonstrated to be a very effective method of recovering critical-

weight-range mammals and some other threatened species in the south-west and in some arid

areas, research has also shown that there is an interaction between introduced predators (dingo,

fox and feral cat), particularly in more arid areas. In the Gibson Desert, the Desert Dreaming

project showed that dingo and fox control resulted in a significant increase in feral cat numbers

and that cats replaced foxes as effective predators. Although feral cats are particularly well

adapted to open, sandy country and are most abundant in arid and semiarid areas, current

research programs are investigating the possibility that predation by cats in the higher rainfall

areas is limiting fauna recovery in the presence of fox control.

Although landscape-scale control of introduced predators has resulted in successful native fauna

recovery, relationships are highly complex. Monitoring results may reveal different trends

between species and different patterns over time and space within a single species. Continuing

research is needed to refine and add to knowledge about introduced predator control and

predator–fauna interaction in order to carry out effective operations and improve monitoring

protocols. It is critical to review and assess the effectiveness of regular control programs, in

conjunction with the results of fauna monitoring and other factors, to identify and implement

adaptive management measures.

A significant part of Western Shield’s success has been the support of local residents,

landowners and the private sector. To maintain this support, extreme care is taken in undertaking

baiting programs to ensure that non-target baiting of domestic animals is minimised. It is

essential to maintain the project’s momentum and maximise participation in project

implementation by engaging in regular two-way communication with all stakeholders (both

internal and external), and ensuring rapid and accurate dissemination of scientific and

management data and their interpretation, including successes and failures.

244

Figure 6.10 Capture rates for medium-sized mammals in Julimar forest block

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Jun-92

Nov-92

Jan-93

May-93

Sep-93

Nov-93

Aug-94

Aug-95

Jul-96

Jul-97

Jul-98

Jun-99

Jun-00

Jul-01

Jul-02

Jul-03

Jun-04

Jun-05

Jun-06

Jun-07

Trapping period

Mean

daily p

erc

en

t cap

ture

rate

Brushtail Possum Woylie Quenda Chuditch

Preliminary

data only

Quenda restocking

commenced May 2004

Woylie restocking

commenced June 2004Fox baiting commenced

July 1992

Chuditch reintroduced

September 1992

Brushtail Possum first reintroduced

late May 1993

Woylie reintroduced

1995

Foxglove aerial fox

baiting commenced

April 1994

Quenda first

reintroduced 1994

Note: Bars denote standard errors.

245

Case study 6.5 Impact of fox predation on fledging success of little terns and other shorebirds in New South Wales (DECCW 2008a)


This case study presents information on long-term monitoring of little terns and the impact of fox predation on the fledgling success of four shorebirds in New South Wales: little tern, beach stone-curlew, hooded plover and pied oystercatcher.

Shorebirds and breeding sites are impacted by a range of threats, including habitat disturbance and change in hydrological regimes. Predation by foxes is a major cause of egg and chick mortality in threatened shorebirds along the New South Wales coastline. Foxes are abundant along the entire New South Wales coastline, except where fox control has temporarily reduced their densities. Activity at shorebird nesting sites varies between seasons.

Little tern (Sterna albifrons), hooded plover (Thinornis rubricollisand) and beach stone-curlew (Esacus neglectus) are listed as Endangered under the New South Wales Threatened Species

Conservation Act 1995; the pied oystercatcher (Haematopus longirostris) is listed as Vulnerable.

Predation of native fauna by foxes (Vulpes vulpes) is listed as a Key Threatening Process under the Act.

About the program

The objective of the project is to maximise the recruitment of threatened shorebirds along the New South Wales coastline. Fledgling success is monitored at the main sites as a surrogate for recruitment to measure the effectiveness of fox control and other management.

Fox control commences up to a month before the arrival of the shorebirds (at sites where nesting is predictable) and continues for the duration of the breeding season, typically from late winter to late summer, with the season being later at sites of higher latitude. Baiting with 1080 is the primary method of control, but trapping and spotlight shooting occur as required. Baiting is typically continuous, with weekly replacement of baits. Fox control is targeted over a 4-km radius around each breeding site (approximate width of two fox home ranges), although efforts to achieve such a buffer are often compromised by the complexity of land tenure or the proximity of urban areas.


Over a period of monitoring little terns from 1998/99 to 2003/04, the numbers of breeding pairs, eggs laid and fledglings produced have steadily increased since implementation of recovery actions. Considerable differences exist in the contribution of individual sites and regions to the overall breeding results. Notably, a number of additional important nesting areas have been established (Keating and Jarman 2004).

The New South Wales little tern population appears to be recovering as a result of integrated and intensive management actions, including temporary fencing of sites, fox control, sand-bagging against storm surges and king tides, vegetation control, community education programs, and implementation of a volunteer warder program.

Breeding success is greater at sites with fox control than at sites without. Fledgling success, calculated as the number of birds fledged divided by the number of eggs laid at major sites, is shown in Figure 6.11. However, fox predation remained a common source of mortality where control was undertaken, suggesting that there is potential for improvement in control programs. Other causes of egg and chick mortality include predation by ravens and gulls, inundation during storm surges, and crushing by four-wheel drive vehicles. Mortality from these sources may

246

increase where foxes have been controlled, suggesting that sources of mortality are not additive (P Mahon and S Lassau, Department of Conservation, pers. comm).

Figure 6.11 Fledgling success for little terns and pied oystercatchers, 2005/2006

Case study 6.6 Environmental water allocation and colonial breeding waterbirds on the Murray River (DSE 2008b)

Nature of the threat

Modifications to the natural flow of the Murray River have led to a reduction in the frequency, magnitude and duration of floods in key wetlands in northern Victoria. This has had consequences for the breeding of colonial waterbirds, with the threatened little, intermediate and great egrets particularly affected by the loss of winter floods to key breeding areas in Murray River wetlands. Egrets used to breed in Gunbower and Barmah Forest wetlands in their thousands. Such large breeding events are now very rare—the last significant breeding was in 1974 in Gunbower—and there is the growing possibility that they will not occur again at these locations due to loss of winter floods that need to last into spring and summer (i.e. 6–9 months duration). Without appropriate action, these egrets may even cease to breed in Victoria.

In recent years, environmental watering strategies under the Living Murray program (see Chapter 5) have delivered water to these wetlands. One of the desired outcomes of this watering is the successful breeding of thousands of colonial waterbirds in both Gunbower and Barmah Forest wetlands in at least three years out of ten.

About the program

In 2002, the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council established The Living Murray in response to concerns about the environmental and economic health of the River Murray system. This initiative involves a number of collective actions to return the system to a healthy working river. Under the Living Murray initiative, environmental water allocations are released at six icon sites along the river. These include the Barmah–Millewa Forests and Gunbower Koondrook–

247

Perricoota Forests, both historical breeding grounds of colonial waterbirds, including three threatened species of egrets.

In 2005/06 the first environmental water allocation (EWA) supplied under the Living Murray initiative was delivered to the icon sites. These water allocations were adaptively managed to achieve multiple objectives, including flow variation and enhancement of flood peaks to encourage the breeding of native fish and the protection and enhancement of the river red gum communities, and to provide breeding opportunities for colonial waterbirds.

In 2006/07, the Living Murray EWA was reduced due to severe drought, with less than 1 per cent of the total areas of icon sites watered (MDBC 2007). The availability of water for 2007/08 remains low, and it is unlikely that any significant amount will be made available for EWA.


The release of 513 GL for Barmah–Millewa EWA in 2005/06 enabled a successful breeding event of the scale and extent targeted by the ecological objectives of the Living Murray initiative.

Aerial surveys and on-ground inspections in the Barmah–Millewa Forests wetlands between October 2005 and February 2006 established that the EWA delivery in 2005/06 resulted in the successful breeding of more than 52 000 colonial waterbirds, with multiple colonies established throughout the wetland system. This included the establishment of a mixed colony of the near-threatened nankeen night-heron (~800 nests) and three species of egret (great egret, ~150 nests; intermediate egret, ~50 nests; and little egret, ~10 nests). This was the first time these species have bred in Barmah in more than 40 years and the first recorded breeding of little egrets in northern Victoria in 25 years. Australian white ibis, straw-necked ibis and royal spoonbills also bred in higher numbers than in previous years (Ward and O’Connor 2006).

The 2005/06 EWA delivery to sites in Gunbower Forest also stimulated a waterbird breeding event. Numerous great egrets were observed in full breeding plumage, and eggs were identified in intermediate and great egret nests. These breeding events, however significant, were still at a much smaller scale than those seen before the 1970s, when egrets bred in their thousands. Little and intermediate egrets, in particular, only bred in small numbers compared with historical events.

The delivery of the EWA in 2005/06 demonstrated that appropriately targeted water delivery can effectively stimulate breeding of colonial waterbirds. The outlook for the future, however, is particularly challenging, especially given the impact of the recent drought. There was little capacity to water in 2006/07, and watering is unlikely in 2007/08. In order to meet the frequency stated in the ecological objective for successful breeding of waterbirds, a flood event similar in scale to 2005/06 would need to occur in 2009/10 or 2010/11. This will require water in addition to the accumulated EWA, unless very wet conditions occur to support the release (MDBC 2007).

Case study 6.7 Managing the environmental impacts of weeds on public land in Victoria (DSE 2008c)


Environmental weeds are one of the major threats to public land biodiversity. They compete directly with native flora, alter habitats for fauna and, in some cases, impact on other major ecological parameters such as fire regimes or stream flow.

In Victoria, public land managers are faced with management of the threats posed by more than 580 taxa of weeds across 300 vegetation types on 8.5 million hectares of public land. Weed

248

invasion is identified as a potentially threatening process under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee

Act 1988. Weeds have been identified as a threat or management issue that needs to be addressed for 121 threatened taxa at 398 out of 1319 priority locations in the Actions for Biodiversity Conservation (ABC) database (see Case Study 4.6). Allocation of limited resources to this vast problem needs to be carefully prioritised if the maximum benefits are to be realised.

About the program

The Department of Sustainability and Environment has recently developed a framework including guidelines and procedures that outline the key priorities, on-ground implementation processes, and methods to monitor outcomes and manage data and communication. The framework is innovative in taking a strategic, evidence-based approach to weed management implemented at the landscape scale and thus across tenures. Prevention of new and emerging weeds is given the highest priority. It uses an asset-based approach to established weeds. The asset-based approach helps land managers to prioritise and resolve the complexities associated with so many established weeds threatening such a variety of assets. It has the potential to provide more refined feedback to land managers on their performance in addressing the threat. Recording progress in limiting the size of the problem (eradication of new and emerging species) and assets protected (quality of vegetation) is a significant advance over the previous measure of area treated.

This framework has been tested as a pilot study in the Otway region (Platt et al 2008). A model of weed risk was developed to help with surveillance activities. Priority was given to prevention and eradication of new and emerging weeds, including ‘sleeper’ weeds (weeds that appear benign for many years, but have the potential to suddenly spread rapidly as conditions change) with the aim of preventing the existing problems worsening. The second priority was to protect important asset areas from established weeds. These were identified using a model of the conservation significance of the vegetation, threatened fauna habitat, threatened flora records and degree of fragmentation. Rapid surveys were undertaken close to these asset areas to supplement and verify weed records.

A list of tasks arranged according to priority was then generated, and the Otway Weeds Project progressively carried out the tasks.

A weeds risk ranking system and a dynamic model of weed spread were also developed.


Benefits include eradication of new and emerging weeds before they become widely established, protection of important asset areas, and providing opportunities for the local community to become more effectively involved. Important asset areas have been identified in the Otway region, and these have become the focus for managing the threat from established weeds.

In the pilot study, most known new and emerging weed occurrences could be addressed in a short period of time. New and emerging weed species are being treated at 33 of 34 sites. In addition, most weed occurrences at asset areas are being treated.

The new framework will allow a much more strategic approach to managing weeds. The number of new and emerging weeds establishing within a region should be reduced. Areas of great value to the community on public land will be maintained in a healthier condition. Public land managers and the community have a framework on which to base decisions and work together.

6.7 Conservation on private land

The day-to-day decisions of private land managers impact on biodiversity across almost

70 per cent of the Australian landscape. In some regions, particularly in the highly

249

modified areas of the southern states, important remnants for biodiversity occur only or

primarily on private land.

There is growing interest in mechanisms to encourage land managers to conserve

biodiversity on private land, including change in land tenure through the purchase of

land by environmental NGOs, the use of conservation covenants and less formal co-

management agreements to secure biodiversity outcomes. Although there are as yet

insufficient monitoring data to enable a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness

of private conservation arrangements, it is likely that such arrangements will become an

increasingly important mechanism, especially in jurisdictions that retain substantial

unreserved biodiversity on private land. These arrangements have an important role in

complementing the reserves system and in augmenting efforts to protect at-risk

biodiversity.

All Australian governments provide for conservation initiatives on private land under

their biodiversity policies (Table 6.9).

Table 6.9 Programs for biodiversity conservation on private land

Jurisdiction Features of off-reserve conservation programs

Australia Use of economic instruments and incentive-based policies, incorporation of biodiversity conservation in whole-farm or property management, bioregional and catchment planning.

Support for protected areas on private land since the mid-1990s.

Qld Promotion of measures that will give recognition to land managers and achieve positive biodiversity outcomes; strategy for south-east Queensland contains action area for off-park conservation and management.

ACT Incentives scheme for off-reserve conservation proposed; property management agreements.

NSW Development and implementation of policies and management practices to achieve ecologically sustainable development, agricultural management practices, implementation of cooperative programs (e.g. Farming for the Future).

Vic Market-based instruments such as BushTender, BushBroker, and EcoTender, auction-based programs for delivering biodiversity outcomes on private land, planning processes and other cooperative agreements on private land in the context of regional vegetation plans.

Tas Private land incentives and financial packages market-based instruments (e.g. certification and eco-labelling).

SA Landowner duty of care as baseline to inform public investment decisions by 2011; incentive-based policy mechanisms by 2011, removal of adverse incentives.

WA Expansion of off-reserve conservation incentive programs, market-based instruments, voluntary approaches, direct financial incentives for on-ground works, industry-driven approaches.

NT Enhancing biodiversity conservation on urban and semirural land is a key strategic area.

250

6.7.1 Case studies of institutional responses on private land

A number of case studies were commissioned for this Assessment to represent a range of

institutions and responses to threats to biodiversity:

• The Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999.

• The Tasmanian Midlands component of the Biodiversity Hotspots Program.

• Land for Wildlife, Victoria.

• Bush Heritage Australia.

• Living Landscapes, Western Australia.

• The cotton industry.

• Breathe Easy, Greening Australia.

• The Northern Territory NRM region.

• The Kuka Kanyini Watarru project, South Australia.

• Brisbane City Council.

The case studies were carried out using desk-top research and interviews with four main

stakeholder groups associated with each case study: those responsible for developing the

response, those responsible for implementing the response, those affected by the

response and those observing/assessing the response.

These case studies are contained in a report (Williams and Price 2008) commissioned for

this Assessment to examine institutional responses to biodiversity conservation on

private land. Key findings and conclusions of the report are summarised below.

Key findings from the Williams and Price report

Australian governments, industries and citizens invest in highly diverse ways in response

to the threats to biodiversity. Each response evaluated has had some beneficial outcome,

although in most cases this can only be quantified at a broad level because of the lack of

effective and systematic monitoring systems—a significant issue for evaluation of

program effectiveness, for planning and for adaptive management.

Despite these beneficial outcomes, the level of threat to biodiversity has not abated

overall, and the loss of biodiversity continues at the national scale. This is a consequence

of the limited resources invested in responses to threats to biodiversity, and the relatively

small scale of initiatives, compared with the scale and nature of the threats.

In some cases, the main drivers of institutional responses were threatening processes

such as land clearing. In others, the main goal of an institution was to maintain and

enhance biodiversity, with threats being a secondary driver. Altered fire regimes were

identified as a major threat to biodiversity across the majority of the case studies. Most

institutional responses did not identify climate change as a major threat to biodiversity.

The majority of the responses focused on private land, where many recent programs are

targeted. The biodiversity values associated with private land are considerable, and their

management is a complementary (and necessary) adjunct to public land management.

251

Current and emerging threats to biodiversity are beyond the capacity of voluntary and

uncoordinated approaches to tackle. A mix of responses will be required, the make-up of

which will vary from region to region and issue to issue. Ultimately, the long-term future

of biodiversity on private land will rely on land managers valuing the maintenance of

biodiversity on their land. Markets that pay for biodiversity outcomes, such as land

acquisition and stewardship programs, are likely to be strong drivers of change. Best-

practice regulations are an important part of the mix, as are targeted incentives that

promote and support long-term outcomes. Programs that are only in place for short

periods are not conducive to good biodiversity outcomes, unless they promote long-term

behavioural change or permanently add areas to the conservation estate, with ongoing

management in place.

There are a growing number of landscape-scale projects, which cover multiple land

tenures and involve multiple partners, including government agencies, non-government

organisations, private land-holders and industry. These projects recognise the need to

deal with biodiversity threats at the landscape scale and over the long term. The National

Water Initiative and the growing cooperative approach (including intergovernmental

arrangements) to the management of Australia’s water resources are examples of such an

approach.

Effective investment requires adequate monitoring, assessment and adaptation processes.

Numerous response initiatives have been established without due investment in good

process. This is as much a governance issue as a financial one. Clarity of purpose and

understanding of what constitutes progress would reduce inefficiency.

Indigenous people bring a very different perspective to biodiversity and what threatens it.

In Aboriginal worldviews, the natural and cultural environments are cosmologically

intertwined. When Aboriginal people talk of country, they refer not just to an area of

land or body of water but also to a mythical–religious landscape of places, values,

resources, stories and cultural obligations. Institutional responses, overall, need to more

seriously address and engage with Indigenous knowledge and values.

All ten case studies identified as a significant institutional issue the limited number of

people available with the skills and capacity to implement programs. This longer-term

capacity issue cannot be readily resolved and highlights the need for a more concerted

mix of responses that makes best use of limited capacity.

The recent move towards large-scale, multi-partner responses that take a systems

approach and focus on ecological processes is an encouraging development. Evidence is

also growing that maintaining biodiversity is an essential part of a healthy production

system and can, in some cases, reduce costs of production considerably. In this respect,

industry has a significant role to play in addressing threats to biodiversity.

Factors that support successful responses

A number of factors associated with positive biodiversity outcomes emerged. Ideally,

these would be in place at the start of a program:

• Rigorous and effective governance structures are in place.

• The objectives of a program/project are clearly identified.

252

• The social, cultural and economic setting is taken into account when developing and

implementing programs.

• Access to scientific expertise is available to support programs and develop effective

approaches to monitoring.

• People with the right skills are engaged.

• Effective partnerships based on mutual objectives and willingness to share expertise

are formed.

6.7.2 Industry responses and partnerships

In the past few decades, industries across all sectors have been proactive in developing

strategies to address environmental issues and to implement environmental management.

Industries are at the forefront of developing accreditation and best-management-practice

systems, many of which involve practices that impact positively on biodiversity (see

Table 6.10).

In the primary industries, the growing commitment to environmental management is

driven to some extent by new legislation, particularly relating to chemicals, product

safety, health and safety, water management, off-farm pollution from intensive

industries, resource security and vegetation management. There is also a strong

stewardship ethos among land managers and a common desire to look after both the

natural resources and the farm environmental values.

Several primary industries have developed best-practice guidelines and are implementing

programs to encourage their adoption by members. Some have progressed to

accreditation systems that provide incentives for members to achieve higher levels of

environmental management. A few industries have been able to capitalise on premium

prices for produce produced under accredited branding that requires meeting

environmental management standards.

The organic produce industry, growing at an estimated 30 per cent per year globally, has

successfully developed a premium market based on consumer preference for food grown

with minimal chemicals. Despite problems with accreditation, including a lack of

consistent standards, the organic produce industries have responded to, and further

promoted, a rapidly growing premium market.

Intensive agriculture industries, including the range of irrigation industries, are currently

leading the development and adoption of fully accredited systems that include

environmental management criteria. These industries include cotton, rice, sugar, wine

and other horticulture. The accreditation systems focus on codes of practice to meet

industry best practice and regulatory requirements. Several industries take the process

further to embrace higher levels of environmental management, including biodiversity

conservation.

Accreditation systems for broad-acre agriculture, which accounts for so much of the

Australian landscape, have proven more difficult to achieve because of the diverse nature

of the industries and their environmental settings. There has been measured success

through EMS in some key grain-growing and grazing areas (e.g. southern Queensland),

but widespread adoption of practices that conserve biodiversity also requires the types of

253

policy and legislative frameworks that are only now gradually being implemented across

the country (e.g. for native vegetation management).

Some key industries—for example, cotton—are working closely with governments to

develop practical systems that will enable their businesses to meet environmental and

NRM legislative requirements through best-practice accreditation. In Queensland, the

state government and peak industry body, the Queensland Farmers’ Federation, have

signed a memorandum of understanding that sets the basis for development of industry

accreditation to meet state regulations relating to water, threatened species and

vegetation management. Other partnerships include:

• Victorian vegetable growers and EPA (Environment Protection Authority) Victoria

• members of the Greenhouse Challenge (a national government-funded program to

support industries to partner in initiatives to address greenhouse challenges) and the

Australian Government

• rice growers and the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, and

• individual land-holders and state governments, which engaged in negotiated

agreements relating to native vegetation with regional NRM groups.

Table 6.10 Examples of industry biodiversity and environment policy

Industry/industry association

Policy

Cotton Sustainability policy relating to healthy rivers, vegetation management, soil health, salinity, climate change and biotechnology.

Rice A Biodiversity Strategy for the Australian Rice Industry 2002

Dairy Dairying for Tomorrow: A National Strategy for Sustainable Resource Management.

Seafood Australian Seafood Industry Council Policy Statement 2004—includes environmental issues: protected areas, marine pests and diseases, resource security, competition from seals.

Wine Sustaining Success: The Australian Wine Industry’s Environment Strategy 2002—advocates a national approach, integrated across industry components, proactive and focusing on education.

Water to Wine—a policy for water management in the wine industry—advocates increasing knowledge about water use and requirements in the industry, water conservation, efficiency measures and reuse options.

Tourism Independent accreditation systems, including nature conservation standards and monitoring.

Sugar Cane Growers Public Environment Report 2005—biodiversity issues include impacts on the reef and fisheries.

Forestry Australian Forestry Standard Report: 20 Years of Improvement in Australian Forest Practices—biodiversity is a key element.

Meat and livestock

No overall environmental policy or specific biodiversity policy; various programs have biodiversity objectives (e.g. Grain and Graze research and development project has joint aims of increasing profits and improving environmental management).

254

Wool Land, Water and Wool program of Australian Wool Innovation Ltd and Land & Water Australia—support research and development into sustainable landscapes, including biodiversity conservation, through the Biodiversity and Native Vegetation Program.

6.8 Regional NRM arrangements

One of the significant changes in biodiversity management across Australia since 2002

has been the strengthening and consolidation of the regional delivery model for NRM.

The regional NRM groups now manage a major proportion of total public investment in

biodiversity conservation. This will continue under the Australian Government’s Caring

for Our Country initiative.

The negotiations towards the bilateral agreements for the second phase of the Natural

Heritage Trust (NHT2) and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality

(NAP)—the key funding mechanisms for investment in biodiversity through the regional

investment model—resulted in a number of important commitments from the states and

territories in relation to biodiversity conservation.

The regional delivery model for the NHT and NAP integrated many of the national and

state/territory programs that impacted on biodiversity. The programs funded under the

NHT and NAP were largely delivered through the NRM regional groups, and several of

the jurisdictions integrated their NRM programs at regional level (e.g. the New South

Wales arrangements for native vegetation management).

The regional model is becoming increasingly important in the on-ground implementation

of biodiversity programs, as the states and territories and the Australian Government

channel NRM and biodiversity investments through the NRM regional groups. This

model has the potential to integrate national and state/territory biodiversity policy and

objectives with regional investment in on-ground implementation.

State and Territory commitments

State and Territories’ agreements to implementation of NHT and the NAP resulted in the

following measures:

The Northern Territory agreed to introduce measures that would:

• allow the broad-scale clearing of native vegetation only where the proponent can

clearly demonstrate that regional biodiversity objectives are not compromised, and

• prevent clearing of endangered or vulnerable vegetation communities and critical

habitats for threatened species and communities listed under Northern Territory or

Australian Government legislation.

The Northern Territory has also agreed to progress the conservation, restoration and

management of native vegetation through the agreed actions in the Northern Territory

Work Plan under the National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of

Australia’s Native Vegetation and within the context of an integrated approach to NRM.

255

The agreements for implementation of NHT and the NAP in New South Wales include

commitments to:

• prevent clearance of ecological communities with less than 30 per cent of pre-1750

extent

• assess native vegetation condition

• contribute to reducing the national net rate of land clearance to zero

• prohibit clearance of native vegetation where it would lead to unacceptable land and

water degradation

• improve quality and quantity of native vegetation, as well as protection of wildlife

habitat and threatened species, populations and ecological communities on private

land, and

• accelerate development of an integrated native vegetation information system.

The Tasmanian Government agreed to a range of initiatives to strengthen the regulation

of non-forest native vegetation.

The Western Australian Government agreed to:

• implement more effective regulatory controls for protection of native vegetation

through amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1986, including the

requirement for proponents to apply for a permit to clear and the ability to refuse

applications on the grounds of biodiversity, protection of threatened flora and fauna,

land conservation, salinity hazard and aesthetics

• implement a monitoring program to report on effectiveness and compliance with the

Act

• develop and introduce a Biodiversity Conservation Bill to provide for the

development of strategies and policies for delivering a prioritised strategic approach

to biodiversity conservation, management and protection, including management of

key threatening processes, recovery of threatened species and ecological

communities, establishment of a CAR reserve system, and development of

functional conservation networks, and

• develop biodiversity protection policy and legislation consistent with the EPBC Act,

and put in place a more comprehensive regulatory system for controlling clearing.

The South Australian Government commitments include:

• a continued commitment to water reforms and control of native vegetation clearance,

and

• the development of a biodiversity strategy (released in 2007) and legislation.

Case study 6.8 National evaluation of impacts on biodiversity (Griffin NRM and URS Australia 2006)

This case study summarises the findings of a comprehensive evaluation of the biodiversity outcomes of the regional investment model (Griffin NRM and URS Australia 2006). The

256

evaluation was based on a brief appraisal of all 56 Australian NRM regions and detailed studies of 16 selected regions.

It was not possible to measure on-ground outcomes, largely because the regional model was still too new, but also because regional monitoring at that time (2006) did not target these outcomes. However, there were clear findings relating to the future achievement of biodiversity outcomes. These findings were generally and specifically confirmed by the recent Australian National Audit Office evaluation of the outcomes of the regional investment model overall (ANAO 2008). They are relevant to this assessment and to the new Caring for Our Country initiative implemented in July 2008.

The majority of regional organisations have, in a relatively short time, built on a history of catchment planning to successfully develop a strong strategic basis (through Integrated Regional Plans—IRPs, and Regional Investment Strategies—RISs) for delivery of the programs included in the regional NRM investment model (NHT2, NAP, state-wide, multiregional, priority projects and matching state funds). The regional delivery model is maturing across the nation and is better targeted at high-priority problems than past NRM programs.

The regional organisations are part of a joint Australian and state/territory government framework. Statutory and governance arrangements vary between different jurisdictions. Some regional organisations have a long-established history and are well developed. The comprehensive restructuring of NRM management and governance in several jurisdictions over the past few years has meant that some regional organisations are relatively new and are still developing capacities in key areas. The IRPs also reflect the high level of variability in socioeconomic and biophysical conditions between the different regions.

The key strengths of the regional investment model include its ability to reflect and adapt to the specific conditions and circumstances of the region, and to engage communities through agreed paths forward in NRM. There are no generic ‘one size fits all’ solutions to the challenges of NRM that can apply across the regions to deliver long-term national biodiversity outcomes.

The regional organisations are well placed to guide and catalyse development of best-practice NRM technology and systems, and to promote their widespread adoption in their regions. Regional organisations are aware that, to achieve this, they must base their strategies on a sound regional understanding of the natural resource base and the production systems it supports, and must develop robust partnerships with industry and other stakeholders to achieve on-ground action. They also need the backing of strong, long-term, consistent whole-of-government policy and legislation to achieve key national biodiversity targets.

Is the regional model working for biodiversity conservation?

The regional investment model works for biodiversity conservation because:

• the national approvals process for accreditation and investment ensures a strong strategic focus on biodiversity conservation

• regional organisations are well placed to negotiate a balance of national and regional priorities in relation to biodiversity conservation

• regional organisations use an extensive and ongoing consultation process that will result in higher levels of awareness of, and commitment to, biodiversity conservation

• regional organisations are able to successfully engage with a range of sectors — government, non-government agencies, private individuals, industry groups and community groups

• the level of leveraged investment in biodiversity conservation is increasing under the regional model

• regional organisations draw on best available knowledge to target investment in biodiversity conservation, and

257

• regional organisations are beginning to achieve integration of biodiversity conservation across other NRM programs.

The regional model is young, but there are several early indicators of these strengths.

The regional model provides for negotiated target setting that can operate within, but is relatively unimpeded by, an often highly contested and adversarial regulatory setting for biodiversity conservation. The resulting regional biodiversity targets are more likely to be understood, owned and accepted by the people who need to be engaged in biodiversity conservation on the ground, especially land-holders.

Attendance at public and stakeholder consultations indicates a high level of interest. Submissions to regional organisations in response to draft strategic plans indicate a high level of ownership. Trends in the levels of private investment in biodiversity conservation under the regional investment model are overwhelmingly upwards (as indicated, for example, by uptake of incentives and covenants for biodiversity conservation on private land).

In some regions NHT and NAP funding now accounts for a minor proportion of overall investment in biodiversity conservation. In most regions, the contributions of private landholders are expected to exceed inputs from the major funding programs to 2006/07.

Regional organisations draw on local knowledge and expert knowledge, and employ a range of delivery mechanisms that more or less enable targeted investment. They are engaged in facilitating research and development to fill knowledge gaps and to develop mechanisms that are more effective in targeting investment. Not all regional investment in biodiversity conservation is strategic, but targeting is improving.

Regional organisations are beginning to achieve integration of biodiversity conservation across other NRM programs. Some of their key delivery mechanisms (e.g. property planning and agreements to manage native vegetation) enable them to negotiate biodiversity outcomes directly with landholders engaged in other NRM programs (e.g. NAP).

Recommendations

The following recommendations draw on the findings of the evaluation. Some relate specifically to biodiversity conservation. Others apply more generally to the operating environment of the regional investment model, and are important or critical to achieving biodiversity conservation as a long-term outcome of integrated regional NRM.

• Negotiate long-term investment plans with regional organisations based on long-term performance indicators. It will take a long time and sustained high levels of investment at regional level to achieve national biodiversity conservation objectives.

• Have confidence in regional organisations to manage inputs to achieve long-term biodiversity outcomes and provide them with greater flexibility for managing inputs under the agreed plans.

• Maintain the current regional model and provide a stable investment setting (without constantly changing investment signals and approval procedures). Build on past achievements.

• Invest in the knowledge and skills gaps identified by regional organisations. Fund the development of an adaptive framework for monitoring and evaluation for the regional model.

• Enhance the partnerships between research and development agencies and regional organisations through strategic funding of research and development gaps identified by regional organisations.

• Provide targeted assistance to facilitate genuine and ongoing engagement of Indigenous communities in regional NRM.

258

• Target all investment at regional level through the RIS.

• Reduce the administrative load on regional organisations by allowing for a single contract for delivery of government investment at regional level.

• Help regional organisations to build awareness among their stakeholders of the fundamental role of biodiversity conservation in a healthy society and landscapes.

• Clarify the roles of government facilitators and coordinators in close consultation with regional organisations.

• Encourage states and territories to develop and implement statutory backing for regional biodiversity conservation (e.g. through the bilateral agreements).

6.9 Enhancing biodiversity outcomes

This section describes two projects that illustrate progress in methods to enhance

biodiversity outcomes—BioMetric: a terrestrial biodiversity tool for the NSW property

vegetation plan developer, and the Biodiversity Benefits project.

Case study 6.9 The development of BioMetric (DECCW 2008b)

Excessive clearing of native vegetation poses a threat to biodiversity and its attendant ecosystem services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Between 60 000 hectares and 100 000 hectares of native vegetation was cleared annually in New South Wales before 2003 (DEC 2003, Auditor-General of New South Wales 2006). In 2003, independent scientists recommended to the New South Wales Government that broad-scale clearing of remnant vegetation should cease, with minor clearing permitted only under a strict, but workable, net environmental gain mechanism (Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists 2003).

Effective regulation of land clearing can be a cost-effective way to conserve biodiversity and its attendant ecosystem services. However, few operational tools (as distinct from indicators and metrics) for assessing impacts on biodiversity of clearing native vegetation have been published.

BioMetric was developed to assess impacts on terrestrial biodiversity for applications to clear native vegetation in rural and semirural areas in New South Wales. It is a Microsoft Excel-based tool that facilitates preparation of property vegetation plans under the New South Wales Native

Vegetation Act 2003. It works alongside separate tools for assessing threatened species, soils, water quality, salinity and invasive native scrub. BioMetric was developed to underpin a policy that prohibits land clearing unless it ‘improves or maintains environmental outcomes for terrestrial biodiversity’. This is analogous to the principle of no net loss. In practice, it means that relatively intact native vegetation cannot generally be cleared because natural ecosystems cannot generally be replicated.

BioMetric is a tool for assessing terrestrial biodiversity at the scale of the patch, paddock or property—it is not a planning tool. It assesses:

• losses of biodiversity from proposed clearing (including thinning)

• gains in biodiversity from management actions proposed for offsets, and

• gains in biodiversity from management actions proposed for incentives.

It does not deal with the assessment of private native forestry, clearing for routine agricultural management activities, continuation of existing farming activities, or clearing of regrowth.

259

The ecological principles that underpin BioMetric

The guiding ecological principles were defined from the outset to provide a structured pathway for considering options for assessment and stakeholder input:

• Biodiversity is composition, structure and function at a hierarchy of scales.

• Representative examples of all ecosystems should be conserved.

• Priorities should be given to actions that result in long-term viability.

BioMetric methodology

Several different biodiversity surrogates and assessment techniques are used to assess the impacts of land clearing on biodiversity. As no single surrogate for biodiversity is comprehensive, risk is spread (Lindenmayer et al 2002) by using different surrogates for biodiversity across multiple scales.

Structural and compositional attributes of vegetation measured on each site are compared with benchmark vegetation exhibiting relatively little evidence of modification since European settlement. Benchmarks are intended to represent the range of alternative stable states (Westoby et al 1989) in ecosystems undergoing natural disturbances, excluding major perturbations such as fire and flood.

To provide landscape context for sites, simple landscape measures are used, based on the extent and configuration of vegetation estimated from high-resolution satellite imagery and/or aerial photography. These measures were guided by the species–area relationship (Rosenzweig 1995) and the patch–corridor–matrix model.

Developing models for individual species, functional groups, communities or populations (Ferrier et al 2002ab) to inform this part of the assessment is impractical. The potential impacts of clearing on individual threatened species are assessed separately. These separate assessments allow for clearing where offsets will improve the habitat for specific threatened species at least to the same extent as the habitat values lost through the proposed clearing. The threatened species assessment does not allow clearing where impacts are unsustainable for a local population of a threatened species.

Most vegetation in which clearing with offsets is permitted is vegetation in ‘low condition’ or unlikely to persist with existing land use. ‘Low condition’ describes systems in which native vegetation comprises only a residual overstorey (<25 per cent of total vegetation) dispersed among a predominantly exotic groundcover (≥50 per cent). The rationale for including this step in the assessment is to identify vegetation for which clearing and offsets could potentially lead to a better conservation outcome. Native vegetation in an ecosystem of high conservation value can only be considered for clearing if it is unlikely to persist in the long term or is in ‘low condition’.

Impacts from clearing are offset with management actions (e.g. stock exclusion, weed control, planting) to improve the condition or promote the ongoing viability of comparable native vegetation. The Site Value metric encourages offsets to be established in vegetation that is already in moderate condition, rather than vegetation in poor or excellent condition. This is partly due to the high offset requirements of vegetation in excellent condition and the low likelihood that clearing of vegetation in excellent condition would be commensurate with the principle of ‘no net loss’.

The assessment methodology presented here does not represent the only approach that can be used for assessing impacts on terrestrial biodiversity of clearing native vegetation. Each jurisdiction has unique operational requirements and resources, and different ecological systems.

260

Accordingly, there are different views on the most appropriate ways to assess biodiversity, and research will continuously shed light on avenues for improvement. The approach employed in developing BioMetric can be applied universally to the development of similar biodiversity assessment tools. It involves the following steps:

• Define operational requirements, resource constraints and ecological principles at the outset.

• Identify biodiversity surrogates and assessment techniques.

• Develop explicit rules for when clearing can, and cannot, occur (any flexibility must be specified).

• Codify these rules into a tool that is consistent, transparent and auditable.

• Revise the tool adaptively based on field trials and on operational and policy needs and experience.

Case study 6.10 Biodiversity Benefits project—methods for mapping on-ground vegetation enhancement activities (Zerger et al 2009)

Description of threat(s) to biodiversity

Why map on-ground vegetation enhancement activities? Accurately mapping on-ground vegetation enhancement activities to Biodiversity Benefits framework minimum specifications is a costly exercise. For example, mapping a case study of approximately 100 vegetation enhancement sites can cost more than $25 000. However, mapping of on-ground activities by either regional or local groups can be justified for a number of reasons, including: • supporting the development of monitoring programs

• assessing progress towards regional NRM targets

• supporting vegetation restoration projects

• supporting adaptive management, and

• for project management and compliance.

This project developed methods and protocols for cost effectively and accurately mapping on-ground vegetation enhancement activities, and tested the methodology for six national case studies. The protocols focus on both spatial data acquisition and aspatial (attribute) data acquisition and management. The outcomes from this project will make an important contribution to national NRM monitoring and evaluation frameworks by providing tested processes for capturing information on existing vegetation enhancement activities. The project stresses that an essential feature of effective reporting and evaluation systems is the use of well-structured databases to enable comparison between case studies, and comparisons through time for individual study sites. Consequently, one project output is a well structured GIS and attribute database that meets minimum data specifications for six national case studies.

Description of project

The Biodiversity Benefits Phase 3 project has mapped 216 379 hectares of on-ground vegetation enhancement activities across six case studies at 691 individual sites. Data from the project allow stakeholders to apply the Biodiversity Benefits framework to assess the effectiveness of their on-ground activities by using existing landscape-scale data. Mapping has occurred over a variety of

261

landscapes, from fragmented agricultural landscapes in the south-east of Australia to rainforest communities in the wet tropics and rangelands in Western Australia. In addition to primary data collection, the project has also resulted in the development of mapping and attribute data collection protocols and tools to enable NRM groups to map and record their on-ground activities.

Outcomes

The project developed a number of tools, including the BioAudit relational database management system for managing and analysing on-ground vegetation enhancement data, and the FieldAudit hand-held computing system linked to a global positioning system to allow field mappers to rapidly collect data in the BioAudit system. However, the key outcome from the project was not the tools but rather the rules, protocols and testing of methods in an operational environment. The study evaluated the ease of data capture and found that the primary challenge in collecting information on biodiversity benefits is to obtain historical data on vegetation enhancement inputs (e.g. quantity of seed, provenance) and outputs (e.g. survival rates). Through the case studies, the project has identified issues confronting NRM groups who wish to collect biodiversity benefits data to support their planning activities.

Links to bigger picture

It is unrealistic to expect the widespread national mapping of past on-ground vegetation enhancement activities to Biodiversity Benefits specifications. Mapping tools and protocols should be made available to NRM groups to enable them to conduct their own mapping using national standards. Also, the mapping of a larger number of study sites to act as long-term monitoring sites is needed for assessing the biodiversity benefits of vegetation enhancement activities. In addition to collecting data, this would include conducting a more detailed biodiversity benefits assessment. A scaleable sample of study sites would allow for comparisons between sites of the effectiveness of on-ground activities. This may facilitate the adoption of adaptive management approaches to improve the biodiversity outcomes of future on-ground vegetation enhancement activities.

262

Figure 6.12 Cudgewa and Tintaldra Landcare Group (north-east Victoria): mapped vegetation enhancement activities

chapter 6 - managing the threats to australia’s biodiversity · 216 6.2 indicators the relevant...

Documents