Effectiveness of biodiversity management

Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management
Management statusNew technologies, solutions and innovationsAssessing the effectiveness of biodiversity managementManagement initiatives and investmentsManagement capacityManagement contextAssessing the effectiveness of biodiversity management
Effectiveness of biodiversity management
Component
Summary
Grade
Ineffective Partially effective Effective Very effective
Confidence
In Grade In Trend
Comparability
To previous years

Conservation in the National Reserve System

Understanding: Understanding of the value and threats to the NRS is generally good

Year(s): 
2016
3
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Conservation in the National Reserve System

2016
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

 

  • the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure on biodiversity management research
  • the proportion of EPBC-listed ecological communities represented in the National Reserve System (Figure 38)
  • the proportion of IBRA regions represented in the National Reserve System and the change in representation since 2011 (Figure 39).

Data on the extent of the National Reserve System and tenure (Figure 35) are from the department's CAPAD and IPA databases.

 

An analysis of area-based targets for the protection of terrestrial ecosystems and the adequacy of protection of nationally threatened species provided by WWF Australia (Figures 36 and 37).

 

Data on the area protected under state-based conservation covenants and in reserves owned by major nonprofit conservation land-owning organisations in Australia sourced from

 

Fitzsimons, 2014

Fitzsimons J (2014). Australia. In: Stolton S, Redford KH & Dudley N (eds), The futures of privately protected areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, 54–58.

Comments

Not assessed in 2011.

Topics

Planning: Policies and plans are in place to meet objectives and set targets for increasing the extent and improving the condition of protected areas, particularly through the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Australia's Strategy for the National Reserve System. Implementation has been effective for extent targets, but implementation of targets for reducing pressures are not well linked to on-ground actions

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Conservation in the National Reserve System

2016
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

 

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure on biodiversity management research
  • the proportion of EPBC-listed ecological communities represented in the National Reserve System (Figure 38)
  • the proportion of IBRA regions represented in the National Reserve System and the change in representation since 2011 (Figure 39).

Data on the extent of the National Reserve System and tenure (Figure 35) are from the department's CAPAD and IPA databases.

An analysis of area-based targets for the protection of terrestrial ecosystems and the adequacy of protection of nationally threatened species provided by WWF Australia (Figures 36 and 37).

Data on the area protected under state-based conservation covenants and in reserves owned by major nonprofit conservation land-owning organisations in Australia sourced from

Fitzsimons, 2014

Fitzsimons J (2014). Australia. In: Stolton S, Redford KH & Dudley N (eds), The futures of privately protected areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, 54–58.

Comments

Not assessed in 2011.

Topics

Inputs: Inputs have been sufficient to increase the extent of the National Reserve System since 2011. However, adequate financial and staffing resources for on-ground management are limited in some areas and funding overall for  management has declined

Year(s): 
2016
2
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Conservation in the National Reserve System

2016
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure on biodiversity management research
  • the proportion of EPBC-listed ecological communities represented in the National Reserve System (Figure 38)
  • the proportion of IBRA regions represented in the National Reserve System and the change in representation since 2011 (Figure 39).

Data on the extent of the National Reserve System and tenure (Figure 35) are from the department's CAPAD and IPA databases.

An analysis of area-based targets for the protection of terrestrial ecosystems and the adequacy of protection of nationally threatened species provided by WWF Australia (Figures 36 and 37).

Data on the area protected under state-based conservation covenants and in reserves owned by major nonprofit conservation land-owning organisations in Australia sourced from

Fitzsimons, 2014

Fitzsimons J (2014). Australia. In: Stolton S, Redford KH & Dudley N (eds), The futures of privately protected areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, 54–58.

Comments

Not assessed in 2011.

Topics

Processes: Management systems are in place across some parts of the NRS

Year(s): 
2016
3
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Conservation in the National Reserve System

2016
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure on biodiversity management research
  • the proportion of EPBC-listed ecological communities represented in the National Reserve System (Figure 38)
  • the proportion of IBRA regions represented in the National Reserve System and the change in representation since 2011 (Figure 39).

Data on the extent of the National Reserve System and tenure (Figure 35) are from the department's CAPAD and IPA databases.

An analysis of area-based targets for the protection of terrestrial ecosystems and the adequacy of protection of nationally threatened species provided by WWF Australia (Figures 36 and 37).

Data on the area protected under state-based conservation covenants and in reserves owned by major nonprofit conservation land-owning organisations in Australia sourced from

Fitzsimons, 2014

Fitzsimons J (2014). Australia. In: Stolton S, Redford KH & Dudley N (eds), The futures of privately protected areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, 54–58.

Comments

Not assessed in 2011.

Topics

Outputs and outcomes: Australia has met area-based targets for the NRS. However, targets for comprehensiveness, adequacy and representation are proving more difficult to attain. Forest ecosystems are the best protected, whereas woodland and grassland ecosystems are the least well protected. Wetlands in the arid and semi-arid zone, and aquatic ecosystems are generally poorly represented. Fifty per cent of critically endangered EPBC Act-listed communities and 30 per cent of endangered communities have less than 5 per cent of their area represented in the NRS

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Conservation in the National Reserve System

2016
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure on biodiversity management research
  • the proportion of EPBC-listed ecological communities represented in the National Reserve System (Figure 38)
  • the proportion of IBRA regions represented in the National Reserve System and the change in representation since 2011 (Figure 39).

Data on the extent of the National Reserve System and tenure (Figure 35) are from the department's CAPAD and IPA databases.

An analysis of area-based targets for the protection of terrestrial ecosystems and the adequacy of protection of nationally threatened species provided by WWF Australia (Figures 36 and 37).

Data on the area protected under state-based conservation covenants and in reserves owned by major nonprofit conservation land-owning organisations in Australia sourced from

Fitzsimons, 2014

Fitzsimons J (2014). Australia. In: Stolton S, Redford KH & Dudley N (eds), The futures of privately protected areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, 54–58.

Comments

Not assessed in 2011.

Topics

Management of threatened species

Understanding: Understanding of the pressures affecting threatened species is good. Understanding of state and trends, and monitoring of threatened species is limited to a small proportion of species

Year(s): 
2016
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Management of threatened species

2016
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references also include recent analysis and reviews on the effectiveness of recovery planning for threatened species

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of National management strategies, initiatives and investments.
  • expenditure on biodiversity management research.
  • the proportion of EPBC-listed ecological communities represented in the National Reserve System (Figure 38)
  • the proportion of IBRA regions represented in the National Reserve System and the change in representation since 2011 (Figure 39).

Data on the extent of the National Reserve System and tenure (Figure 35) are from the department's CAPAD and IPA databases.

An analysis of area–based targets for protection of terrestrial ecosystems and adequacy of protection of nationally threatened species provided by WWF Australia (Figures 36 and 37).

Data on the area protected under state-based conservation covenants and in reserves owned by major nonprofit conservation land-owning organisations in Australia are from ​Fitzsimons, 2014​ .

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Bottrill et al. 2011

Bottrill MC, Walsh JC, Watson JE, Joseph LN, Ortega-Argueta A & Possingham HP (2011). Does recovery planning improve the status of threatened species? Biological Conservation 144(5):1595–1601.

Taylor et al. 2011

Taylor MFJ, Sattler PS, Evans M, Fuller RA, Watson JEM & Possingham H (2011). What works for threatened species recovery? An empirical evaluation for Australia. Biodiversity and Conservation 20(4):767–777.

ACF et al. 2015

ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation), BirdLife Australia & Environmental Justice Australia (2015). Recovery planning: restoring life to our threatened species, ACF, BirdLife Australia & Environmental Justice Australia, Melbourne.

Woinarski et al. 2014

Woinarski JCZ, Burbidge AA & Harrison PL (2014). The Action Plan for Australian Mammals, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

Fitzsimons 2014

Fitzsimons J (2014). Australia. In: Stolton S, Redford KH & Dudley N (eds), The futures of privately protected areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, 54–58.

Comments

Not assessed in 2011.

Topics

Planning: Policies and plans are in place, outlining objectives for management of threatened species. The Threatened Species Strategy is a new initiative since 2011 and provides policy to guide development of recovery plans for threatened species

Year(s): 
2016
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Management of threatened species

2016
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references also include recent analysis and reviews on the effectiveness of recovery planning for threatened species

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of National management strategies, initiatives and investments.
  • expenditure on biodiversity management research.
  • the proportion of EPBC-listed ecological communities represented in the National Reserve System (Figure 38)
  • the proportion of IBRA regions represented in the National Reserve System and the change in representation since 2011 (Figure 39).

Data on the extent of the National Reserve System and tenure (Figure 35) are from the department's CAPAD and IPA databases.

An analysis of area–based targets for protection of terrestrial ecosystems and adequacy of protection of nationally threatened species provided by WWF Australia (Figures 36 and 37).

Data on the area protected under state-based conservation covenants and in reserves owned by major nonprofit conservation land-owning organisations in Australia are from ​Fitzsimons, 2014​ .

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Bottrill et al. 2011

Bottrill MC, Walsh JC, Watson JE, Joseph LN, Ortega-Argueta A & Possingham HP (2011). Does recovery planning improve the status of threatened species? Biological Conservation 144(5):1595–1601.

Taylor et al. 2011

Taylor MFJ, Sattler PS, Evans M, Fuller RA, Watson JEM & Possingham H (2011). What works for threatened species recovery? An empirical evaluation for Australia. Biodiversity and Conservation 20(4):767–777.

ACF et al. 2015

ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation), BirdLife Australia & Environmental Justice Australia (2015). Recovery planning: restoring life to our threatened species, ACF, BirdLife Australia & Environmental Justice Australia, Melbourne.

Woinarski et al. 2014

Woinarski JCZ, Burbidge AA & Harrison PL (2014). The Action Plan for Australian Mammals, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

Fitzsimons 2014

Fitzsimons J (2014). Australia. In: Stolton S, Redford KH & Dudley N (eds), The futures of privately protected areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, 54–58.

Comments

Not assessed in 2011. 

Topics

Inputs: Resources appear to be inadequate for implementing recovery plan actions, and for monitoring the state and trends of some threatened species

Year(s): 
2016
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Management of threatened species

2016
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references also include recent analysis and reviews on the effectiveness of recovery planning for threatened species

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of National management strategies, initiatives and investments.
  • expenditure on biodiversity management research.
  • the proportion of EPBC-listed ecological communities represented in the National Reserve System (Figure 38)
  • the proportion of IBRA regions represented in the National Reserve System and the change in representation since 2011 (Figure 39).

Data on the extent of the National Reserve System and tenure (Figure 35) are from the department's CAPAD and IPA databases.

An analysis of area–based targets for protection of terrestrial ecosystems and adequacy of protection of nationally threatened species provided by WWF Australia (Figures 36 and 37).

Data on the area protected under state-based conservation covenants and in reserves owned by major nonprofit conservation land-owning organisations in Australia are from ​Fitzsimons, 2014​ .

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Bottrill et al. 2011

Bottrill MC, Walsh JC, Watson JE, Joseph LN, Ortega-Argueta A & Possingham HP (2011). Does recovery planning improve the status of threatened species? Biological Conservation 144(5):1595–1601.

Taylor et al. 2011

Taylor MFJ, Sattler PS, Evans M, Fuller RA, Watson JEM & Possingham H (2011). What works for threatened species recovery? An empirical evaluation for Australia. Biodiversity and Conservation 20(4):767–777.

ACF et al. 2015

ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation), BirdLife Australia & Environmental Justice Australia (2015). Recovery planning: restoring life to our threatened species, ACF, BirdLife Australia & Environmental Justice Australia, Melbourne.

Woinarski et al. 2014

Woinarski JCZ, Burbidge AA & Harrison PL (2014). The Action Plan for Australian Mammals, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

Fitzsimons 2014

Fitzsimons J (2014). Australia. In: Stolton S, Redford KH & Dudley N (eds), The futures of privately protected areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, 54–58.

Comments

Not assessed in 2011.

Topics

Processes: Management systems are in place for recognising threatened species and for developing recovery plans. Improvements are evident in the efficiency of listing processes. The Threatened Species Strategy improves the practice of recovery planning for high-priority species

Year(s): 
2016
4
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Management of threatened species

2016
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references also include recent analysis and reviews on the effectiveness of recovery planning for threatened species

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of National management strategies, initiatives and investments.
  • expenditure on biodiversity management research.
  • the proportion of EPBC-listed ecological communities represented in the National Reserve System (Figure 38)
  • the proportion of IBRA regions represented in the National Reserve System and the change in representation since 2011 (Figure 39).

Data on the extent of the National Reserve System and tenure (Figure 35) are from the department's CAPAD and IPA databases.

An analysis of area–based targets for protection of terrestrial ecosystems and adequacy of protection of nationally threatened species provided by WWF Australia (Figures 36 and 37).

Data on the area protected under state-based conservation covenants and in reserves owned by major nonprofit conservation land-owning organisations in Australia are from ​Fitzsimons, 2014​ .

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Bottrill et al. 2011

Bottrill MC, Walsh JC, Watson JE, Joseph LN, Ortega-Argueta A & Possingham HP (2011). Does recovery planning improve the status of threatened species? Biological Conservation 144(5):1595–1601.

Taylor et al. 2011

Taylor MFJ, Sattler PS, Evans M, Fuller RA, Watson JEM & Possingham H (2011). What works for threatened species recovery? An empirical evaluation for Australia. Biodiversity and Conservation 20(4):767–777.

ACF et al. 2015

ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation), BirdLife Australia & Environmental Justice Australia (2015). Recovery planning: restoring life to our threatened species, ACF, BirdLife Australia & Environmental Justice Australia, Melbourne.

Woinarski et al. 2014

Woinarski JCZ, Burbidge AA & Harrison PL (2014). The Action Plan for Australian Mammals, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

Comments

Not assessed in 2011.

Topics

Outputs and outcomes: All jurisdictions note the difficulty in assessing the management effectiveness of actions undertaken for threatened species because of a lack of monitoring data. The degree of implementation of recovery plans for threatened species is highly variable, with some species subject to very few on-ground recovery actions. Overall, the key pressures on threatened species are increasing

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Management of threatened species

2016
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references also include recent analysis and reviews on the effectiveness of recovery planning for threatened species

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of National management strategies, initiatives and investments.
  • expenditure on biodiversity management research.
  • the proportion of EPBC-listed ecological communities represented in the National Reserve System (Figure 38)
  • the proportion of IBRA regions represented in the National Reserve System and the change in representation since 2011 (Figure 39).

Data on the extent of the National Reserve System and tenure (Figure 35) are from the department's CAPAD and IPA databases.

An analysis of area–based targets for protection of terrestrial ecosystems and adequacy of protection of nationally threatened species provided by WWF Australia (Figures 36 and 37).

Data on the area protected under state-based conservation covenants and in reserves owned by major nonprofit conservation land-owning organisations in Australia are from ​Fitzsimons, 2014​ .

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Bottrill et al. 2011

Bottrill MC, Walsh JC, Watson JE, Joseph LN, Ortega-Argueta A & Possingham HP (2011). Does recovery planning improve the status of threatened species? Biological Conservation 144(5):1595–1601.

Taylor et al. 2011

Taylor MFJ, Sattler PS, Evans M, Fuller RA, Watson JEM & Possingham H (2011). What works for threatened species recovery? An empirical evaluation for Australia. Biodiversity and Conservation 20(4):767–777.

ACF et al. 2015

ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation), BirdLife Australia & Environmental Justice Australia (2015). Recovery planning: restoring life to our threatened species, ACF, BirdLife Australia & Environmental Justice Australia, Melbourne.

Woinarski et al. 2014

Woinarski JCZ, Burbidge AA & Harrison PL (2014). The Action Plan for Australian Mammals, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

Comments

Not assessed.

Topics

Climate

Understanding: All jurisdictional reports recognise the adverse effects of climate change on biodiversity. The impacts of climate change on biodiversity are broadly understood, and strategies for management and adaptation to climate change are improving

Year(s): 
2016
3
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Climate

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

 

  • the status of National management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure on climate research.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

 

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

 

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

 

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

 

 

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Understanding: Strategies around Australia acknowledge the need to plan for drought as a usual rather than exceptional circumstance. Climate variability is recognised in all jurisdictions as a key pressure to be addressed. Thinking about the governance context for addressing climate change is not well developed nationally

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Planning: The Australian Government has released a National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy, and most jurisdictions have developed adaptation strategies since 2011 or have strategies in development. Adaptation objectives for biodiversity across national and jurisdictional strategies are generally focused on information-gathering rather than action. Emissions targets have been set, but many scientists and stakeholders argue that they are inadequate

Year(s): 
2016
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Climate

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of National management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure on climate research.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

​Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Planning: National and jurisdictional plans for addressing future climate change are emerging as are plans to address year-to-year variation in water availability. Most of these plans still are struggling with how to move from emergency management to proactive management that engages the spectrum of key stakeholders. There remains a lack of clarity about mitigation versus adaptation and policy makers are still struggling with how to deal with uncertainty about climate

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Inputs: Australian Government investment in climate mitigation and adaptation research has declined since 2011. The latest climate projections at state and regional scale are now readily and widely available

Year(s): 
2016
2
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Climate

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of National management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure on climate research.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

​Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Inputs: Investment in data collection nationally is increasing, but many stakeholders argue it is still inadequate

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Processes: Governance systems provide some guidance, but are not consistently delivering on implementation actions or stakeholder engagement for biodiversity

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Climate

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of National management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure on climate research.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

​Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

References cited in text.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of National management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure on climate research.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

​Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Topics

Processes: Processes for dealing with drought and other aspects of climate variability are still highly reactive and based on emergency management. The Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) Commission and the MDB Authority have demonstrated models for interjurisdictional cooperation, but many stakeholders are calling for greater engagement with a wider range of stakeholders

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Outputs and outcomes: It is difficult to tell whether management objectives contained in national and jurisdictional plans to improve resilience of biodiversity have been effective. Management objectives mostly relate to investigating and monitoring climate impacts, and developing options to increase resilience. Few management objectives contain quantifiable targets

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Climate

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of National management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure on climate research.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

​Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Outputs and outcomes: The effects of recent droughts in eastern Australia on businesses and communities have been managed to the satisfaction of many stakeholders, but biodiversity was given a lower priority during emergency management. Plans under development for the MDB promise to give biodiversity a higher priority, but it is too early to see results. Recent developments illustrate that there is still considerable debate among interest groups

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Pollution

Understanding: Understanding of the sources and impacts of pollution for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity is well established. Understanding related to marine and freshwater systems sources and impacts is improving

Year(s): 
2016
3
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Pollution

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

 

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments.

 

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

 

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

 

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

 

 

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Understanding: Sources of pollution and the need for incentive regulatory frameworks are well established for many pollutants. Concerns have been raised that the effects of micropollutants—chemical residues affecting humans and other animals and plants at low concentrations (e.g. breakdown products from medications, including birth-control drugs, and a range of hormone analogues) are under-recognised. If carbon pollution and acidification of oceans are considered, our assessment of the understanding of the issues is reduced

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Planning: The Australian Government has released a National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy, and most jurisdictions have developed adaptation strategies since 2011 or have strategies in development. Adaptation objectives for biodiversity across national and jurisdictional strategies are generally focused on information-gathering rather than action. Emissions targets have been set, but many scientists and stakeholders argue that they are inadequate

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Topics

Planning: Many key industries have been working closely with governments to develop policies, plans and codes of practice to manage their effects on biodiversity, including pollution from off-farm run-off. Plans for addressing carbon pollution and ocean acidifications are at early stages of development and may need to be accelerated to address looming challenges

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Inputs: Inputs to management from point sources and some diffuse sources are mostly effective. Micropollutants and marine debris are receiving more attention and inputs to management

Year(s): 
2016
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Pollution

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Inputs: Resourcing the implementation of pollution-management plans requires allocation of funds and a willingness to adopt best practice by both large companies and individual landowners. It appears that this is happening across most parts of Australia and most industries with respect to point-based pollution and some diffuse sources like agriculture and urban pollution. However, inputs to implementing plans to address carbon pollution and ocean acidification are arguably inadequate considering the potential challenges ahead. Micropollutants appear to be receiving inadequate attention

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Processes: Management systems provide guidance and are well implemented across point sources and some diffuse sources. Some initiatives to limit use of plastics have been put in place

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Pollution

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Processes: Best-practice guidelines have been developed for most key industries and it appears they are being applied by a large proportion of land managers. Few processes have been put in place to deal with carbon pollution and ocean acidification. Processes for detecting and dealing with micropollutants are poorly developed

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Outputs and outcomes: Run-off from production systems in freshwater, coastal and marine systems is still a concern for most jurisdictions. Progress has been made in understanding the impacts and sources of marine debris. Little is known about pollutant levels in the marine environment

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Pollution

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Outputs and outcomes: All jurisdictions list pollution as a significant concern, especially in the contamination of waterways. Most suggest that regulation and best practice are keeping most pollutants within acceptable limits. Fertiliser run-off into waterways in many agricultural areas remains a concern. Very few tangible outputs or outcomes can be cited in relation to carbon pollution and ocean acidification. Micronutrients remain an emerging problem that has probably been underestimated

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Consumption and extraction of biodiversity and/or other natural resources

Understanding: Monitoring of species that are legally harvested is well established. The impact of illegal or unregulated harvesting on threatened species is poorly understood. The relationship between population growth and demand on natural resources is still poorly understood

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Consumption and extraction of biodiversity and/or other natural resources

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

 

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments.

 

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

 

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

 

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

 

 

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Understanding: The need to carefully plan and monitor harvesting of native species is well recognised. However, the relationship between population size and distribution and demands of humans on natural processes mediated by elements of biodiversity is poorly understood and inadequately discussed. For example, debate about a population policy for Australia over the past 10 years has rarely considered environmental impacts in a sophisticated way

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Planning: Plans are in place that provide objectives and targets for harvesting and water consumption. Plans to balance human population growth and consumption of natural resources are poorly developed

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Consumption and extraction of biodiversity and/or other natural resources

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Planning: Overall pressure of the human population on the environment is discussed in some plans at the state level, but detailed plans to manage such pressures are poorly developed. The recent moves to discuss a national population policy promises to lead to planning that include human–environment interactions

Year(s): 
2011
1
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Inputs: Inputs to regulating and monitoring the harvesting of species appear to be adequate

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Consumption and extraction of biodiversity and/or other natural resources

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Inputs: Inputs to regulating and monitoring the harvesting of terrestrial biodiversity appear adequate (but see Chapter 6: Marine environment for discussion of the regulation of fisheries). Most jurisdictions have invested in understanding the demands of humans on the environment and communicating that information to stakeholders, but progress appears to be limited by funding and inadequate research in most jurisdictions, including nationally

Year(s): 
2011
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Processes: Processes for regulating and monitoring native species harvesting and water consumption appear to work well. Limited processes are in place for assessing and monitoring human demands on natural resources more broadly

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Consumption and extraction of biodiversity and/or other natural resources

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Processes: Processes for regulating and monitoring native species harvesting appear to work well (but see Chapter 6: Marine environment for discussion of the regulation of fisheries). There are very few processes for assessing human demands on the environment more generally and most efforts are made by nongovernment organisations

Year(s): 
2011
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Outputs and outcomes: Management objectives for the harvest of native species appear to be mostly met. There has been no reduction of current pressures of human population growth on natural resources more broadly

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Consumption and extraction of biodiversity and/or other natural resources

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts and Marine Environment chapters.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Outputs and outcomes: Regulation and monitoring of the harvesting of native species appears to be effective (but see Chapter 6: Marine environment for discussion of the regulation of fisheries). Although limited attention has been given to the broader demand of humans on the environment, government and nongovernment agencies have been moderately successful in drawing attention to issues in this area

Year(s): 
2011
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Clearing and fragmentation of native ecosystems

Understanding: The extent and impact of clearing and fragmentation is well understood. The acknowledged importance of this pressure has a significant impact on state and national policy decisions

Year(s): 
2016
3
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Comparable

Clearing and fragmentation of native ecosystems

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references include the WWF reports and analysis using data from the Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System, Land use, land use change and forestry activity table (

 

Taylor et al., 2014

Taylor M, Eber S & Toni P (2014a). Changing land use to save Australian wildlife, WWF Australia, Sydney.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Understanding: The significance of this pressure has been recognised nationwide

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Planning: Legislation, policies and plans are in place in most jurisdictions, although there are regular changes to planning instruments and little certainty in their longevity in some jurisdictions. Monitoring and compliance of legislation may not always be effective

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Comparable

Clearing and fragmentation of native ecosystems

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references include the WWF reports and analysis using data from the Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System, Land use, land use change and forestry activity table (??) and updated by Martin Taylor in August 2016.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Land chapter.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on the status of national management strategies, initiative and investments.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Planning: Legislation, policies and plans are in place in most jurisdictions to address this pressure. Concerns are expressed that there are still ways to circumvent clearing restrictions. Plans to address the effects of past clearing include protecting remaining intact landscapes, investing in ‘stewardship’ of intact remnants by land managers, and/or investing in or encouraging revegetation. Generally, these plans recognise that reversing the effects will take a long time, major investments, and changes in a range of attitudes (of all Australians) and practices relating to land management

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Inputs: Inputs appear to be adequate in terms of stabilising the rate of clearing in most jurisdictions

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Comparable

Clearing and fragmentation of native ecosystems

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references include the WWF reports and analysis using data from the Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System, Land use, land use change and forestry activity table (Taylor et al., 2014) and updated by Martin Taylor in August 2016.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Land chapter.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on the status of national management strategies, initiative and investments.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Inputs: Reports of illegal clearing suggest that resources to enforce restrictions are inadequate. Although all jurisdictions report additions to state and national reserve networks over the past decade, all recognise that these are still inadequate. Inputs to stewardship programs have been increasing at the national scale and in some jurisdictions. Investments in revegetation have been considerable at national and state or territory scales under various government and nongovernment programs. We have not assessed the effectiveness of these inputs against the objectives set by each program (most include performance monitoring criteria). Inputs are still inadequate to halt or reverse the effects of land clearance

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Processes: Well-established management systems are in place; however, regular changes undermine stakeholder support. Clearing rates are reported regularly across all jurisdictions

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Comparable

Clearing and fragmentation of native ecosystems

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references include the WWF reports and analysis using data from the Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System, Land use, land use change and forestry activity table (Taylor et al., 2014) and updated by Martin Taylor in August 2016.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Land chapter.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on the status of national management strategies, initiative and investments.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Processes: Processes for implementing land clearing restrictions appear to be partially effective. Processes for investing in protection of remaining intact ecosystems or encouraging stewardship on private land have been evolving and changing over the past decade. This has been frustrating and overly confusing for many land managers, but it can also be seen as a step towards increasing Australia’s resilience in that governments have been prepared to work with stakeholders to explore new approaches

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Outputs and outcomes: The rate of land-clearing has reduced nationally and in most jurisdictions except Queensland. However, fragmentation and modification of habitat remains one of the most significant pressures on biodiversity, with very high ongoing impacts

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Comparable

Clearing and fragmentation of native ecosystems

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references include the WWF reports and analysis using data from the Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System, Land use, land use change and forestry activity table (??) and updated by Martin Taylor in August 2016.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Land chapter.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on the status of national management strategies, initiative and investments.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Outputs and outcomes: The rate of land clearing has reduced nationally, but the legacy effects of past clearing will continue for some decades. Overall, efforts to arrest or reverse the impacts of clearing have yet to show positive results nationally. The National Reserve System has grown, but is still a long way from being comprehensive, adequate or representative. Efforts by governments and nongovernment groups to encourage complementary conservation outside protected areas have increased protection of moderate areas and added to acceptance of the importance of off-reserve conservation. However, the efficiency and effectiveness of investments in these areas is still strongly debated. For example, we are not sure whether investment in protecting and managing habitat for particular species and groups of species is achieving the best result for all biodiversity. Similarly, we do not know whether the cost-effectiveness of stewardship programs is more efficient and effective than buying and protecting remaining intact ecosystems in perpetuity. The fact that that these issues are being debated on the basis of emerging evidence is a positive step. Exploring multiple options is also consistent with maintaining the resilience of the social–ecological systems of which biodiversity is a part

Year(s): 
2011
1
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Pressures from livestock production

Understanding: The impacts of livestock production systems and grazing are widely acknowledged. Impacts on ecological processes are less clear. It is increasingly recognised that livestock-grazing contributes to threat syndromes, which, cumulatively, have significant biodiversity impacts

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Pressures from livestock production

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text and in the relevant section of the Land chapter.

Information supplied by ERIN on the number of listed species for which grazing is considered a threat.

 

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports:

 

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments.

 

 

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Understanding: Understanding the impacts of grazing has increased dramatically over the past decade, especially the role of watering points in spreading the influence of grazing animals. The context in which grazing is managed has also changed as drought and markets have placed pressure on grazing industries. (The uncertainty shown in the right-hand columns reflects differing views among experts and stakeholders, some of whom think that our grades for all components of pressures from livestock production are too optimistic.)

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Planning: Planning instruments that set management objectives for livestock-grazing impacts on biodiversity are deficient. Biodiversity conservation in agriculture landscape is largely driven by voluntary actions of landholders

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Pressures from livestock production

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text and in the relevant section of the Land chapter.

Information supplied by ERIN on the number of listed species for which grazing is considered a threat.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

​Information provided directly by state and territory government departments.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Planning: Interactions between grazing and biodiversity have been the focus of some major research projects over the past decade, including the Grain and Graze program in Land and Water Australia. This research has produced recommendations on how to plan grazing to minimise effects on biodiversity

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Inputs: It is difficult to assess inputs to managing biodiversity by individual landholders in livestock-production systems. Implementation of on-farm biodiversity management objectives requires significant financial investments by landholders. Incentives are available under some schemes, but may be difficult to access for smaller landholders

Year(s): 
2016
1
Unclear
Confidence (in grade): 
Very limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Very limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Pressures from livestock production

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text and in the relevant section of the Land chapter.

Information supplied by ERIN on the number of listed species for which grazing is considered a threat.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

​Information provided directly by state and territory government departments.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Inputs: The past decade of drought has reduced stocking rates in many places, but other aspects of drought have worked against biodiversity. There is limited information on what efforts graziers have made to apply biodiversity-friendly practices, but their focus has likely been more on economic survival than biodiversity

Year(s): 
2011
1
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Processes: Grazing is still considered a major impact on biodiversity and its impact may be increasing in some parts of northern Australia. Adequate management systems are mostly not in place, and lack consistency and integration of management objectives across jurisdictions

Year(s): 
2016
1
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Pressures from livestock production

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text and in the relevant section of the Land chapter.

Information supplied by ERIN on the number of listed species for which grazing is considered a threat.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

​Information provided directly by state and territory government departments.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Processes: As grazing has been listed as a major pressure across Australia for more than a decade, and major new concerns have arisen about its role in the decline of small mammals and birds in northern Australia, it must be concluded that processes for managing the impacts of livestock production on biodiversity are ineffective. It is perhaps optimistic to suggest that these processes are improving in all parts of Australia, but we conclude that this is an average trajectory

Year(s): 
2011
1
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Outputs and outcomes: There are a small number of very good examples of biodiversity-friendly management regimes. For the vast majority of the livestock-grazing production system in Australia, it is very difficult to assess outcomes

Year(s): 
2016
1
Unclear
Confidence (in grade): 
Very limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Very limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Pressures from livestock production

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text and in the relevant section of the Land chapter.

Information supplied by ERIN on the number of listed species for which grazing is considered a threat.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

​Information provided directly by state and territory government departments.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Outputs and outcomes: It is reported that reductions in the impact of grazing are only observed in the most sophisticated biodiversity-friendly management regimes

Year(s): 
2011
1
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Invasive species and pathogens

Understanding: It is broadly understood that invasive species exert a significant pressure on biodiversity. However, trends in the distribution and abundance of invasive species is not well documented

Year(s): 
2016
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Invasive species and pathogens

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references included the independent evaluations of the Australian Weeds Strategy and the Australian Pest Animals Strategy in 2012.

 

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

 

  • the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure for biodiversity management.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts, Land and Marine Environment chapters.

 

Information supplied by ERIN on the number of listed species for which invasive species are considered a threat and the number of key threatening processes that include invasive species.

 

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

 

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

 

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

 

 

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Understanding: Understanding the effects of invasive species and potential methods of control has been increasing due to research in state and Commonwealth agencies and especially in the cooperative research centre system, but the emergence of several new pressures suggests that understanding is not yet effective. Some reviewers of this document suggested that this situation is deteriorating, not improving as we have suggested

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Planning: There is a lack of nationally consistent legislation to address the impacts of invasive species. National strategic plans are in place, but there is lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities, and few quantifiable objectives on which to assess their effectiveness

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Invasive species and pathogens

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references included the independent evaluations of the Australian Weeds Strategy and the Australian Pest Animals Strategy in 2012.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure for biodiversity management.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts, Land and Marine Environment chapters.

Information supplied by ERIN on the number of listed species for which invasive species are considered a threat and the number of key threatening processes that include invasive species.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Planning: All jurisdictions have multiple plans for detecting invasive species and especially preventing establishment of new invasive species. Plans for reducing the impacts of existing invasive species vary in ambition from containment to eradication

Year(s): 
2011
2
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Inputs: Jurisdictions and land managers from the local to regional scale all note that lack of resources is a very significant issue, impacting their ability to manage invasive species

Year(s): 
2016
1
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Invasive species and pathogens

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references included the independent evaluations of the Australian Weeds Strategy and the Australian Pest Animals Strategy in 2012.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure for biodiversity management.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts, Land and Marine Environment chapters.

Information supplied by ERIN on the number of listed species for which invasive species are considered a threat and the number of key threatening processes that include invasive species.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Inputs: Most jurisdictions admit that they are unable to provide sufficient resources to control existing invasive species and most now focus on preventing establishment of new invasive species. New pressures are emerging and are of high concern due to the limited resources available for control

Year(s): 
2011
1
Deteriorating
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Very limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Processes: Management systems and strategies provide guidance, but serve more as aspirational documents rather than drivers of on-ground action

Year(s): 
2016
2
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Invasive species and pathogens

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references included the independent evaluations of the Australian Weeds Strategy and the Australian Pest Animals Strategy in 2012.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure for biodiversity management.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts, Land and Marine Environment chapters.

Information supplied by ERIN on the number of listed species for which invasive species are considered a threat and the number of key threatening processes that include invasive species.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Processes: Fragmentation of efforts and lack of ability to focus skills and resources strategically at a national scale have been concerns, but these areas appear to be improving

Year(s): 
2011
1
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Outputs and outcomes: There are a few good examples of local eradication for single high-impact species, particularly vertebrates. For the vast majority of invasive species, the situation appears to be worsening

Year(s): 
2016
1
Stable
Confidence (in grade): 
Somewhat adequate
Confidence (in trend): 
Somewhat adequate
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Somewhat comparable

Invasive species and pathogens

20162011
Biodiversity
Effectiveness of management

Approach/Process

Assessment grades and trends were determined by the authors through a qualitative assessment of data and information from publicly available or published reports and scientific papers referenced in the text, information obtained from jurisdictional State of Environment reporting and/or information supplied directly from the jurisdictions.

Data/Information sources

References cited in text.

Key references included the independent evaluations of the Australian Weeds Strategy and the Australian Pest Animals Strategy in 2012.

Data provided by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy on:

  • the status of national management strategies, initiatives and investments
  • expenditure for biodiversity management.

Relevant information, references and assessment from the Inland Water, Coasts, Land and Marine Environment chapters.

Information supplied by ERIN on the number of listed species for which invasive species are considered a threat and the number of key threatening processes that include invasive species.

Jurisdictional State of Environment reports including specific indicators for invasive species state and trend:

  • Australian Capital Territory 2015
  • South Australia 2013 and the South Australian NRM Report Cards 2015
  • New South Wales 2015
  • Victoria 2013

Data collection and quality vary across jurisdictions.

Information provided directly by state and territory government departments. The scope and presentation of material provided vary across jurisdictions.

Comments

The information base used for the 2016 assessment is similar to that used in 2011.

Topics

Outputs and outcomes: Although the impacts of some invasive species have been contained, many long-standing pressures persist and several new ones are emerging or are on the verge of doing so. Our upward-trending grade reflects the improvement of understanding and technologies for addressing invasive species, but resourcing does not appear to be improving at an adequate rate and could threaten progress

Year(s): 
2011
1
Improving
Confidence (in grade): 
Limited
Confidence (in trend): 
Limited
Comparability (to previous reports): 
Not assessed

Topics

Altered fire regimes

See Land theme

Changed hydrology

See Inland water theme

Assessment Summary Key

Grades

Very effective

Elements of management effectiveness and assessment criteria

Description of grade

Managing context (understanding of environmental issues; adequacy of regulatory control mechanisms and policy coverage)

Understanding of context

Decision-makers and environmental managers have a good understanding of:

  • environmental and socio-economic significance of environmental values, including ecosystem functions and cultural importance
  • current and emerging threats to values.

Environmental considerations and information have a significant impact on national policy decisions across the broad range of government responsibilities.

Understanding of environmental and cultural systems, and factors affecting them is good for most management issues

Planning

Policies and plans are in place that provide clarity on:

  • objectives for management actions that address major pressures and risks to environmental values
  • roles and responsibilities for managing environmental issues
  • operational procedures, and a framework for integration and consistency of planning and management across sectors and jurisdictions.

 

Effective legislation, policies and plans are in place for addressing all or most significant issues. Policies and plans clearly establish management objectives and operations targeted at major risks. Responsibility for managing issues is clearly and appropriately allocated

Management capacity (adequacy of resources, appropriateness of governance arrangements and efficiency of management processes)

Inputs

Resources are available to implement plans and policies, including:

  • financial resources
  • human resources
  • information.

Financial and staffing resources are largely adequate to address management issues. Biophysical and socio-economic information is available to inform management decisions

Processes

A governance system is in place that provides for:

  • appropriate stakeholder engagement in decisions and implementation of management activities
  • adaptive management for longer-term initiatives
  • transparency and accountability.

Well-designed management systems are being implemented for effective delivery of planned management actions, including clear governance arrangements, appropriate stakeholder engagement, active adaptive management and adequate reporting against goals

Achievements (delivery of expected products, services and impacts)

Outputs

Management objectives are being met for:

  • timely delivery of products and services
  • reduction of current pressures and emerging risks to environmental values.

Management responses are mostly progressing in accordance with planned programs and are achieving their desired objectives. Targeted threats are being demonstrably reduced

Outcomes

Management objectives are being met for improvements to resilience of environmental values.

Resilience of environmental values is being maintained or improving. Values are considered secured against known threats

Effective

Elements of management effectiveness and assessment criteria

Description of grade

Managing context (understanding of environmental issues; adequacy of regulatory control mechanisms and policy coverage)

Understanding of context

Decision-makers and environmental managers have a good understanding of:

  • environmental and socio-economic significance of environmental values, including ecosystem functions and cultural importance
  • current and emerging threats to values.

Environmental considerations and information have a significant impact on national policy decisions across the broad range of government responsibilities.

Understanding of environmental and cultural systems, and factors affecting them is generally good, but there is some variability across management issues

Planning

Policies and plans are in place that provide clarity on:

  • objectives for management actions that address major pressures and risks to environmental values
  • roles and responsibilities for managing environmental issues
  • operational procedures, and a framework for integration and consistency of planning and management across sectors and jurisdictions.

 

Effective legislation, policies and plans are in place, and management responsibilities are allocated appropriately, for addressing many significant issues. Policies and plans clearly establish management objectives and priorities for addressing major risks, but may not specify implementation procedures

Management capacity (adequacy of resources, appropriateness of governance arrangements and efficiency of management processes)

Inputs

Resources are available to implement plans and policies, including:

  • financial resources
  • human resources
  • information.

Financial and staffing resources are mostly adequate to address management issues, but may not be secure. Biophysical and socio-economic information is available to inform decisions, although there may be deficiencies in some areas

Processes

A governance system is in place that provides for:

  • appropriate stakeholder engagement in decisions and implementation of management activities
  • adaptive management for longer-term initiatives
  • transparency and accountability.

Well-designed management systems are in place, but are not yet being fully implemented

Achievements (delivery of expected products, services and impacts)

Outputs

Management objectives are being met for:

  • timely delivery of products and services
  • reduction of current pressures and emerging risks to environmental values.

Management responses are mostly progressing in accordance with planned programs and are achieving their desired objectives. Targeted threats are understood, and measures are in place to manage them

Outcomes

Management objectives are being met for improvements to resilience of environmental values.

Resilience of environmental values is improving, but threats remain as significant factors affecting environmental systems

Partially effective

Elements of management effectiveness and assessment criteria

Description of grade

Managing context (understanding of environmental issues; adequacy of regulatory control mechanisms and policy coverage)

Understanding of context

Decision-makers and environmental managers have a good understanding of:

  • environmental and socio-economic significance of environmental values, including ecosystem functions and cultural importance
  • current and emerging threats to values.

Environmental considerations and information have a significant impact on national policy decisions across the broad range of government responsibilities.

Understanding of environmental and cultural systems, and factors affecting them is only fair for most management issues

Planning

Policies and plans are in place that provide clarity on:

  • objectives for management actions that address major pressures and risks to environmental values
  • roles and responsibilities for managing environmental issues
  • operational procedures, and a framework for integration and consistency of planning and management across sectors and jurisdictions.

 

Legislation, policies and planning systems are deficient, and/or there is lack of clarity about who has management responsibility, for several significant issues

Management capacity (adequacy of resources, appropriateness of governance arrangements and efficiency of management processes)

Inputs

Resources are available to implement plans and policies, including:

  • financial resources
  • human resources
  • information.

Financial and staffing resources are unable to address management issues in some important areas. Biophysical and socio-economic information is available to inform management decisions, although there are significant deficiencies in some areas

Processes

A governance system is in place that provides for:

  • appropriate stakeholder engagement in decisions and implementation of management activities
  • adaptive management for longer-term initiatives
  • transparency and accountability.

Management systems provide some guidance, but are not consistently delivering on implementation of management actions, stakeholder engagement, adaptive management or reporting

Achievements (delivery of expected products, services and impacts)

Outputs

Management objectives are being met for:

  • timely delivery of products and services
  • reduction of current pressures and emerging risks to environmental values.

Management responses are progressing and showing signs of achieving some objectives. Targeted threats are understood, and measures are being developed to manage them

Outcomes

Management objectives are being met for improvements to resilience of environmental values.

The expected impacts of management measures on improving resilience of environmental values are yet to be seen. Managed threats remain as significant factors influencing environmental systems

Ineffective

Elements of management effectiveness and assessment criteria

Description of grade

Managing context (understanding of environmental issues; adequacy of regulatory control mechanisms and policy coverage)

Understanding of context

Decision-makers and environmental managers have a good understanding of:

  • environmental and socio-economic significance of environmental values, including ecosystem functions and cultural importance
  • current and emerging threats to values.

Environmental considerations and information have a significant impact on national policy decisions across the broad range of government responsibilities.

Understanding of environmental and cultural systems, and factors affecting them is poor for most management issues

Planning

Policies and plans are in place that provide clarity on:

  • objectives for management actions that address major pressures and risks to environmental values
  • roles and responsibilities for managing environmental issues
  • operational procedures, and a framework for integration and consistency of planning and management across sectors and jurisdictions.

 

Legislation, policies and planning systems have not been developed to address significant issues

Management capacity (adequacy of resources, appropriateness of governance arrangements and efficiency of management processes)

Inputs

Resources are available to implement plans and policies, including:

  • financial resources
  • human resources
  • information.

Financial and staffing resources are unable to address management issues in many areas. Biophysical and socio-economic information to support decisions is deficient in many areas

Processes

A governance system is in place that provides for:

  • appropriate stakeholder engagement in decisions and implementation of management activities
  • adaptive management for longer-term initiatives
  • transparency and accountability.

Adequate management systems are not in place. Lack of consistency and integration of management activities across jurisdictions is a problem for many issues

Achievements (delivery of expected products, services and impacts)

Outputs

Management objectives are being met for:

  • timely delivery of products and services
  • reduction of current pressures and emerging risks to environmental values.

Management responses are either not progressing in accordance with planned programs (significant delays or incomplete actions) or the actions undertaken are not achieving their objectives. Threats are not actively being addressed

Outcomes

Management objectives are being met for improvements to resilience of environmental values.

Resilience of environmental values is still low or continuing to decline. Unmitigated threats remain as significant factors influencing environmental systems

Recent Trends

  • Improving

  • Stable

  • Deteriorating

  • Unclear

Confidence

  • Adequate: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus

  • Somewhat adequate: Adequate high-quality evidence or high level of consensus

  • Limited: Limited evidence or limited consensus

  • Very limited: Limited evidence and limited consensus

  • Low: Evidence and consensus too low to make an assessment

Comparability

  • Comparable: Grade and trend are comparable to the previous assessment

  • Somewhat comparable: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the previous assessment

  • Not comparable: Grade and trend are not comparable to the previous assessment

  • Not previously assessed

Cresswell ID, Murphy H (2016). Biodiversity: Effectiveness of biodiversity management. In: Australia state of the environment 2016, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra, https://soe.environment.gov.au/assessment-summary-83-effectiveness-biodiversity-management, DOI 10.4226/94/58b65ac828812