Compliance of Australian threatened species recovery plans with legislative requirements (original) (raw)
Recovery plans are the main documents supporting management decision-making for threatened species. We evaluated Australian recovery plans to assess their appropriateness as conservation and management planning instruments. Six legislative requirements (species information and general requirements, species distribution and location, known and potential threats, objectives, performance criteria and actions, duration of the plan, and estimated costs of plan implementation) were used to assess the degree of compliance of recovery plans with the relevant legislation. We assessed all 236 official recovery plans which had been adopted as at January 2006. The results showed that plans were most compliant regarding the setting of objectives, performance criteria, recovery actions, and duration of plan. Most plans included a single performance criterion that was generally related to the population status of target species. Improvement is required in relation to identification of current threats and critical habitats, and the establishment of basic elements of monitoring and evaluation for measuring recovery progress. Gaps in ecological information are the main factors affecting adequate compliance with legislative requirements as opposed to managerial information (e.g. clarity in establishing the implementation schedule, costs and resource allocation). Planning deficiencies could be addressed by improving the recovery planning guidelines and more carefully reviewing the drafting and adoption of new plans.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
2 3 What works for threatened species recovery? An empirical evaluation for Australia
Despite the growing numbers of threatened species and high levels of spending on their recovery worldwide, there is surprisingly little evidence about which conservation approaches are effective in arresting or reversing threatened species declines. Using two government data sets, we examined associations between population trends for 841 nationally-threatened terrestrial species in Australia, and four measures of conservation effort: (a) how much their distribution overlaps with strictly protected areas (IUCN I-IV), (b) and other protected areas (IUCN V-VI), (c) the number of recovery activities directed at the species, and (d) numbers of natural resource conservation activities applied in areas where populations of the threatened species occur. We found that all populations of 606 (72%) species were in decline. Species with greater distributional overlap with strictly protected areas had proportionately more populations that were increasing or stable. This effect was robust to geographic range size, data quality differences and extent of protection. Measures other than strictly protected areas showed no positive associations with stable or increasing trends. Indeed, species from regions with more natural resource conservation activities were found to be more likely to be declining, consistent with differential targeting of such generalised conservation activities to highly disturbed landscapes. Major differences in trends were also found among the different jurisdictions in which species predominantly occurred, which may be related to different legislative protections against habitat destruction. Although we were not able to test causation, this research corroborates other evidence that protected areas contribute to the stabilization or
Many countries rely on formal legislation to protect and plan for the recovery of threatened species. Even though the listing procedures in threatened species legislation are designed to be consistent for all species there is usually a bias in implementing the laws towards charismatic fauna and flora, which leads to uneven allocation of conservation efforts. However, the extent of bias in national threatened species lists is often unknown. Australia is a good example: the list of threatened species under the Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act has not been reviewed since 2000, when it was first introduced. We assessed how well this Act represents threatened species across taxonomic groups and threat status, and whether biases exist in the types of species with recovery plans. We found that birds, amphibians and mammals have high levels of threatened species (12–24%) but ,6% of all reptiles and plants and ,0.01% of invertebrates and fish are considered threatened. Similar taxonomic biases are present in the types of species with recovery plans. Although there have been recent improvements in the representation of threatened species with recovery plans across taxonomic groups, there are still major gaps between the predicted and listed numbers of threatened species. Because of biases in the listing and recovery planning processes many threatened species may receive little attention regardless of their potential for recovery: a lost opportunity to achieve the greatest conservation impact possible. The Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act in Australia needs reform to rectify these biases.
Many countries rely on formal legislation to protect and plan for the recovery of threatened species. Even though the listing procedures in threatened species legislation are designed to be consistent for all species there is usually a bias in implementing the laws towards charismatic fauna and flora, which leads to uneven allocation of conservation efforts. However, the extent of bias in national threatened species lists is often unknown. Australia is a good example: the list of threatened species under the Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act has not been reviewed since 2000, when it was first introduced. We assessed how well this Act represents threatened species across taxonomic groups and threat status, and whether biases exist in the types of species with recovery plans. We found that birds, amphibians and mammals have high levels of threatened species (12-24%) but , 6% of all reptiles and plants and , 0.01% of invertebrates and fish are considered threatened. Similar taxonomic biases are present in the types of species with recovery plans. Although there have been recent improvements in the representation of threatened species with recovery plans across taxonomic groups, there are still major gaps between the predicted and listed numbers of threatened species. Because of biases in the listing and recovery planning processes many threatened species may receive little attention regardless of their potential for recovery: a lost opportunity to achieve the greatest conservation impact possible. The Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act in Australia needs reform to rectify these biases.
Planning for success: Why conservation programs need a strategic program for recovering species
Conservation Science and Practice
A substantial amount of money has been spent globally on threatened species management. While the number of threatened species continues to increase, we would expect to observe a portion of those receiving active management to respond positively and recover over time. Management of these recovering species requires a different approach to those which are declining. In particular, recovering species may require active monitoring as the primary management activity, once the threats causing their initial decline have been managed such that populations are stable or increasing. When prioritizing funding actions to improve species persistence (in particular with species prioritization approaches such as cost-effectiveness rankings), we demonstrate that monitoring species to track their continued improvement would only occur in the (unlikely) scenario of comprehensive program funding. We provide one easily implemented solution to this-the establishment of a separately funded transitional management stream within which recovering or recovered species are prioritized for monitoring from a dedicated monitoring budget. We present a set of criteria to assess recovering species eligible for this management arrangement and demonstrate the successful application of this approach in New South Wales, Australia in the Saving our Species program.
Progress in improving the protection of species and habitats in Australia
Historically, protected areas were often designated using criteria other than biodiversity conservation as the primary objective. With the emergence of the science of systematic conservation planning, the designation of new protected areas is increasingly made with explicit conservation objectives in mind. However, assessments of the performance of protected area systems typically include all protected areas, regardless of when they were designated, potentially obscuring recent improvements in conservation planning decisions. Thus, it is often unclear to what extent systematic conservation planning principles have influenced the placement of new protected areas. Here, we compare recently designated protected areas in Australia with the protected area system that existed prior to the introduction of systematic conservation planning guidelines in 2000. We ask whether there is a difference between past and recent protection in terms of (i) the size and spatial distribution of protected areas, (ii) the characteristics of broad regions in which protection is concentrated, and (iii) the extent to which protected areas represent ecosystems and threatened species in comparison with selecting protected areas at random. We find that the protected area system was historically biased toward areas with steep slopes and low human populations. In contrast, recent protection is more likely to be allocated to regions with high human population and high numbers of threatened species; we show that this effect is not simply a result of biases in the places now available for conservation. Despite this successful realignment of practice, we find that the increase in protected area coverage in poorly protected regions has occurred more slowly than expected if protected area selections were fully guided by systematic conservation planning principles. Our results demonstrate rapid progress in improving Australia's protected area system in the last decade, and highlight the importance of separating recent from historical additions to the protected area system when measuring the performance of conservation decision-making.
Native flora and fauna species continue to decline in the megadiverse, wealthy, economically and politically stable nation of Australia despite current efforts in policy and management. Ongoing research is examining these declines, their causes and the adequacy of current policy, but strategies for improving the outcomes for threatened species have attracted less attention. We discuss several key aspects of Australia's national threatened species management approach that potentially hinder the efficiency and effectiveness of management: the threatened species listing process is lengthy and biased; recovery plan development is resource intensive, restricted to a subset of species and often not effective; funding for threatened species management is not allocated efficiently or transparently; and management is not designed to incorporate uncertainties and adapt to changing future threats. Based on these issues we recommend four changes to current process: rationalize listing and assessment processes; develop approaches to prioritize species-based and threat-based responses cost-effectively; estimate funds required to recover species and secure longer term funding; and accommodate uncertainties and new threats into the current planning framework. Cost-effective prioritization for species and threats identifies which actions are likely to achieve the greatest benefits to species per unit cost, thereby managing more species and threats with available funds. These improvements can be made without legislative reform, additional funding or socio-economic shifts. If implemented, we believe more Australian threatened species will benefit from current efforts. Many of the challenges facing Australia are analogous to issues in other countries including the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom and these recommendations could assist in improving threatened species management.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.