Threatened Species Strategy
The Threatened Species Strategy is the key Australian Government policy that outlines the government’s approach to protecting and recovering threatened species, and provides an action plan for prioritising effort. Under the improving recovery practices target, each priority species identified in the strategy requires either:
- an up-to-date conservation advice, which provides guidance on immediate recovery and threat abatement activities that can be undertaken to ensure the conservation of a newly listed species or ecological community, or
- a recovery plan, which sets out the research and management actions necessary to stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, listed threatened species or ecological communities.
The strategy also requires that a comprehensive review and work plan is developed to ensure that recovery plans or conservation advices are up to date for other high-priority species and ecological communities.
The 5-year action plan includes key action areas and targets to measure success. It identifies 20 mammal species (Table BIO6), 20 bird species (Table BIO7) and 30 plant species (Table BIO8) targeted for recovery by 2020. It also includes ambitious targets to tackle feral cats and improve recovery practices for all threatened species, and an additional initiative for the Christmas Island frigatebird (Fregata andrewsi).
The Threatened Species Commissioner leads the implementation of the strategy. The commissioner was appointed in July 2014, and is tasked with raising awareness about Australia’s threatened species and mobilising resources to support the fight against extinction.
Since the appointment of the commissioner and development of the strategy, more than $210 million has been mobilised towards almost 1000 projects, including work undertaken through the Green Army and the National Landcare Programme. Many projects have complemented work being undertaken by external partners. For example, in Victoria, the population of the critically endangered helmeted honeyeater has more than doubled, thanks to a project run by Zoos Victoria, which is supplemented with a $3 million government investment to rehabilitate and expand the species’ habitat.
Table BIO6 Threatened Species Strategy: 20 mammals by 2020
Common name
|
Status
|
Main threats
|
Black-footed rock wallaby
|
Vulnerable
|
Foxes, feral cats, habitat degradation, fire
|
Brush-tailed rabbit-rat
|
Vulnerable
|
Feral cats, fire, habitat loss
|
Central rock-rat
|
Endangered
|
Fire, feral cats, foxes, habitat degradation by livestock and feral herbivores
|
Christmas Island flying fox
|
Critically endangered
|
Feral cats, disease, yellow crazy ants
|
Eastern barred bandicoot
|
Endangered on the mainland
|
Feral cats, foxes, disease, habitat loss
|
Eastern bettong
|
Extinct on the mainland
|
Feral cats, foxes, habitat loss
|
Eastern quoll
|
Endangered |
Feral cats, disease |
Gilbert’s potoroo
|
Critically endangered
|
Feral cats, foxes, fire, wildfire
|
Golden bandicoot
|
Vulnerable
|
Feral cats, fire
|
Greater bilby
|
Vulnerable
|
Feral cats, foxes, fire
|
Kangaroo Island dunnart
|
Endangered
|
Feral cats, fire, habitat modification because of phytophthora
|
Leadbeater’s possum
|
Critically endangered
|
Fire regimes, wildfire, habitat loss
|
Mahogany glider
|
Endangered
|
Habitat loss and degradation, fire, entanglement in fencing
|
Mala
|
Endangered
|
Feral cats, foxes, black rats, fire
|
Mountain pygmy possum
|
Endangered
|
Feral cats, foxes, habitat loss, climate change, fire
|
Northern hopping mouse
|
Vulnerable
|
Feral cats, fire
|
Numbat
|
Vulnerable
|
Feral cats, foxes, habitat loss
|
Western quoll
|
Vulnerable
|
Feral cats, foxes
|
Western ringtail possum
|
Vulnerable
|
Climate change, foxes, feral cats, fire, habitat loss
|
Woylie |
Endangered |
Feral cats, foxes, fire |
Table BIO7 Threatened Species Strategy: 20 birds by 2020
Common name
|
Status
|
Main threats
|
Australasian bittern
|
Endangered
|
Diversion of water from wetlands, habitat loss, feral cats, foxes, grazing
|
Eastern bristlebird
|
Endangered
|
Inappropriate fire, weeds, feral animals
|
Eastern curlew
|
Critically endangered
|
Human disturbance, habitat loss, degraded water quality
|
Golden-shouldered parrot
|
Endangered
|
Fire, feral pigs, grazing, illegal trapping, altered land use, feral cats
|
Helmeted honeyeater
|
Critically endangered
|
Drought, wildfire, disease, habitat degradation, competition from other birds
|
Hooded plover
|
Vulnerable
|
Human pressure on nesting sites
|
Mallee emu-wren
|
Endangered
|
Wildfire
|
Malleefowl
|
Vulnerable
|
Habitat loss, foxes, feral cats, grazing, fire
|
Night parrot
|
Endangered
|
Fire, feral cats
|
Norfolk Island boobook owl
|
Endangered
|
Predation
|
Norfolk Island green parrot
|
Endangered
|
Feral cats, rats
|
Orange-bellied parrot
|
Critically endangered
|
Disease, competition for nesting sites, predation
|
Plains-wanderer
|
Critically endangered
|
Habitat degradation, grazing pressure
|
Red-tailed black cockatoo (south-eastern)
|
Endangered
|
Habitat loss, inappropriate fire regimes
|
Regent honeyeater
|
Critically endangered
|
Habitat loss and degradation, noisy miners
|
Southern cassowary
|
Endangered
|
Habitat loss, vehicle strikes, dog attacks
|
Swift parrot
|
Endangered
|
Predation by sugar gliders, habitat loss
|
Western ground parrot
|
Critically endangered
|
Wildfire, feral cats
|
White-throated grass wren
|
Vulnerable
|
Fire, weeds, feral cats, feral pigs, climate change
|
Yellow chat (Alligator Rivers)
|
Endangered
|
Habitat degradation from weeds, and feral herbivores and pigs
|
Table BIO8 Threatened Species Strategy: 30 plants by 2020
Common name
|
Status
|
Main threats
|
Ant plant
|
Vulnerable
|
Habitat loss, invasive weeds, removal of plants by plant and butterfly collectors
|
Black grevillea
|
Endangered
|
Habitat loss, invasive weeds, herbicide overspray, frequent fire, grazing, animals, phytophthora dieback
|
Blue-top sun-orchid
|
Critically endangered
|
Habitat loss and degradation, grazing, invasive weeds
|
Bulberin macadamia nut
|
Endangered
|
Changed fire regimes, weed invasion, disease, feral pigs, illegal collection, timber harvesting
|
Button wrinklewort
|
Endangered
|
Habitat loss, invasive weeds, changed fire regimes, grazing, herbicide and mowing impacts
|
Caley’s grevillea
|
Endangered
|
Habitat loss, invasive weeds, changed fire regimes, human disturbance
|
Central Australian cabbage palm
|
Vulnerable
|
Exotic grass invasion (buffel grass and couch), increased fire exposure, changed hydrology, tourism impacts
|
Fairy bells
|
Vulnerable
|
Feral animal impacts, grazing, habitat loss, inappropriate fire regimes
|
Fitzgerald’s mulla-mulla
|
Critically endangered
|
Habitat loss; salinity; waterlogging; grazing by stock, rabbits and kangaroos; invasive weeds
|
Flerieu leek orchid
|
Critically endangered
|
Habitat loss and degradation, stock trampling, changed hydrology
|
Glossy-leaved hammer-orchid
|
Endangered
|
Habitat loss, fire, invasive weeds, grazing animals, salinity
|
Kakadu hibiscus
|
Vulnerable
|
Inappropriate fire regimes
|
Little mountain palm
|
Critically endangered
|
Predation of seed by introduced rats, invasive weeds
|
Magenta lilly pilly
|
Vulnerable
|
Habitat loss and fragmentation, changed fire regimes, invasive weeds
|
Matchstick banksia
|
Endangered
|
Phytophthora dieback, habitat fragmentation, invasive weeds, changed fire regimes
|
Mongarlowe mallee
|
Critically endangered
|
Phytophthora dieback, habitat loss, disturbance
|
Morrisby’s gum
|
Endangered
|
Changed fire regimes; drought and browsing of seedlings by native animals, rabbits and insects
|
Mossman fairy orchid
|
Critically endangered
|
Illegal collecting, invasive weeds, site disturbance
|
Ormeau bottle tree
|
Critically endangered
|
Habitat loss, invasive weeds, low genetic diversity, fire, insect attack
|
Purple wattle
|
Critically endangered
|
Habitat loss, grazing by cattle, mining, road works, invasive weeds, illegal collecting
|
Scaly-leaved featherflower
|
Endangered
|
Habitat loss, invasive weeds, rabbits, inappropriate fire regimes
|
Shy susan
|
Critically endangered
|
Phytophthora dieback, inappropriate fire regimes, land clearance
|
Silver daisy-bush
|
Vulnerable
|
Livestock grazing, invasive weeds, habitat fragmentation
|
Silver gum
|
Endangered
|
Hybridisation, waterlogging and changes to hydrology, invasive weeds and pathogens, insect attack, grazing
|
Small purple pea
|
Endangered
|
Habitat loss, invasive weeds, grazing, soil erosion
|
Southport heath
|
Critically endangered
|
Phytophthora dieback, inappropriate fire regimes, damage from severe storms
|
Spiny rice-flower
|
Critically endangered
|
Invasive weeds, habitat loss and fragmentation, grazing impacts, fire
|
Turnip copperburr
|
Endangered
|
Invasive weeds, habitat loss and degradation, changed fire regimes, grazing, soil salinity
|
Vincentia banksia
|
Not EPBC Act listed; however, listed as critically endangered in New South Wales
|
Land-use change, invasive weeds, disturbance, fire
|
Whibley’s wattle
|
Endangered
|
Habitat fragmentation, salinity, grazing pressure, invasive weeds
|
EPBC Act = Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Recovery planning for threatened species and communities—progress in implementing recovery plans
In November 2015, 730 species of the 1770 species listed under the EPBC Act were covered by a recovery plan. This included 391 single-species plans, 43 multiple-species plans covering 218 species, and 7 regional plans covering 126 species (a few species are covered by more than 1 type of plan). Under the EPBC Act, all species and ecological communities are required to have a conservation advice in place at the time of their listing. The decision to also have a recovery plan for a listed species or ecological community is a discretionary decision by the Minister for the Environment. A decision on this is made at the level of the individual species or ecological community. So, although not all listed species or ecological communities require a recovery plan, they will have at least a conservation advice in place. Recovery plans are only prepared when the listed species or ecological community has complex management needs because of its ecology, the nature of threats affecting it, or the number of stakeholders affected by, or involved in, implementing the necessary actions.
Conservation advices are relied on where the protection needs are well understood and relatively simple. The lack of funding for the recovery of threatened species, implementation of recovery plans and monitoring of the effectiveness of recovery actions is repeatedly identified as a major problem by land and natural resource managers (SECRC 2013).
The action plan for Australian mammals 2012 (Woinarski et al. 2014) assessed the recovery plans and the degree of implementation of those plans for threatened, near threatened and data-deficient mammals. It noted that:
This documentation is not always straightforward to interpret because (i) we note examples of recovery plans in informal use that have not yet been formally endorsed (with many of these plans having had long informal gestation periods); (ii) at least some recovery plans are now long outdated but are still being used; (iii) there is little available documentation of the degree of implementation (and consequential benefit) for many to most recovery plans; (iv) many recovery plans have been developed only very recently and hence are unlikely to have yet been implemented or produced benefits; and (v) many threatened species (particularly those now restricted to single jurisdictions) have been managed by well established state/territory management strategies, processes or plans rather than national recovery plans made under the EPBC Act. (Woinarski et al. 2014)
Recovery actions and investments—effectiveness of investment in recovery actions
The effectiveness of recovery planning for threatened species and communities is difficult to assess, and there is uncertainty as to whether having a recovery plan in place makes a long-term contribution to species recovery. Some recent research in Australia (Bottrill et al. 2011) suggests that there is no significant difference between change in species status (either an improvement or decline) for species with recovery plans versus those without, across a 10-year period. The presence of a recovery plan did not seem to influence the actions implemented or whether species receive conservation attention. However, a major finding of this research was that there is a lack of basic accounting of recovery planning efforts and, therefore, attempts to understand the value of recovery planning are severely hampered.
In contrast, for mammals, species with well-established and well-implemented recovery plans were more likely to have shown improvement in conservation status from 1992 to 2012 than taxa without recovery plans, or taxa with recovery plans that are very recent or have been little implemented (Woinarski et al. 2014). The action plan for Australian mammals 2012 documents some cases where recovery planning has been instrumental in improving the conservation outlook for threatened taxa (e.g. chuditch—Dasyurus geoffroii, and bridled nail-tail wallaby—Onychogalea fraenata). However, there are also cases where recovery plans have demonstrated little success. The most extreme examples are the Christmas Island pipistrelle and the Bramble Cay melomys, where established recovery plans failed to prevent extinction. The Bramble Cay melomys population was probably less than 100 individuals, and occurred on only 1 uninhabited island in Torres Strait. The recovery plan recognised the key threats and the key factor—climate change—that appears to have resulted in the species’ extinction, although, at the time, the significance of the threat was not well understood. The recovery plan states:
Although no specific assessment of this threat has been undertaken, the likely consequences of climate change, including sea level rise and increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms are unlikely to have any major impact on the survival of the Bramble Cay melomys in the life of this plan. (Latch 2008)
However, very few of the actions in the recovery plan appear to have been implemented, including annual population and habitat monitoring.
Several studies have also reported bias in the types of species with recovery plans. Data current to 2010 show that amphibians and birds have the greatest percentage of species with recovery plans; invertebrates, plants and reptiles are poorly represented in the species that have plans (Walsh et al. 2013).
Researchers have also shown that overlap of threatened species ranges with highly protected areas in Australia is associated with stabilisation or recovery of threatened species populations (Taylor et al. 2011). On the other hand, there is little demonstrable relationship between recovery of threatened species populations and the number of recovery actions or natural resource conservation activities applied. Again, the lack of sufficient data on the implementation of recovery actions hampers any robust analysis of their effectiveness.
A report by the Australian Conservation Foundation, BirdLife Australia and Environmental Justice Australia (ACF et al. 2015) found that, of 120 species-specific, multispecies or regional recovery plans, 85 identified critical habitat and 80 identified habitat loss as a key threat in the recovery plan. In almost all cases, active protection of habitat is a recommended action in the recovery plan. However, only 12 plans placed any form of prescriptive limit or constraint on the future loss of habitat. The authors concluded that, given that there is some precedent for prescribing limits on habitat loss, recovery plans could be more effective if they provided unambiguous and appropriate prescriptions to prevent the loss of critical habitat.
Translocations
Conservation translocation is increasingly used as a tool in conservation management and recovery planning for threatened species. Translocation involves the intentional movement of organisms from one place to another to conserve species. This may take several forms: re-establishing a species in parts of its historical range (reintroduction), releasing individuals to bolster existing populations within the range, or establishing a species outside its historical range in response to threats such as climate change (translocation or assisted colonisation) (Armstrong et al. 2015). Another term, ‘salvage translocation’, is now used to refer to the relocation of individuals from an area adversely affected by development to an area reserved or protected from ongoing impacts.
Conservation translocations have a long history in Australia. The first recognised conservation translocations occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when declining marsupials were translocated to islands off Victoria and South Australia (Armstrong et al. 2015). Since the 1990s, conservation translocation has been regularly used for the conservation of threatened plants and animals. There is now a plethora of state, territory and nongovernment organisation policies and protocols reflecting the increasing range of circumstances in which translocation has been, and is being, implemented (Nally & Adams 2015). Although most translocation activities are carried out by state and territory government agencies as part of a formal recovery plan or equivalent, there is also an increasing number of private-sector and nongovernment species conservation programs using translocations, as well as partnerships between all 3 sectors (Nally & Adams 2015).
To deal with both the increasing use of salvage translocation and the need for national consistency, the Australian Government published a policy statement on how translocations would be considered under the EPBC Act in 2009, which was revised in 2013. The EPBC Act environmental offsets policy outlines the use of offsets to compensate for an action’s residual significant impact that remains after avoidance and mitigation measures have been considered. This policy includes the principle that suitable offsets must effectively account for, and manage the risks of, the offset failing. The potential risks of these efforts of last resort are explained in the Policy Statement—Translocation of Listed Threatened Species, which notes:
The usually low prospects of achieving an ecologically beneficial salvage translocation mean that it usually represents poor compensation for the potential impacts of a proposed action. Additionally, a translocation proposal can increase the impacts of an action. (DSEWPaC 2013)
Translocation as part of conservation activities for climate change adaptation, for threatened species recovery and for mitigation of land-use changes is also acknowledged as a high-risk, but perhaps necessary, strategy in the face of increasing pressure. Significant uncertainty exists about how best to evaluate and reduce the risks associated with translocation, particularly the ecological consequences on the recipient environment and the species living there (Seddon et al. 2015). Although the overall long-term conservation benefits of the increasing use of salvage translocations to offset development remain largely unknown (Nally & Adams 2015), there is a growing need for the private sector to use translocation to meet conservation goals established under environmental conditions of approval for development applications. Further efforts will be required to design novel practices that allay conservation concerns while futureproofing wild populations in new areas.
EPBC Act and compliance
The EPBC Act prohibits undertaking of an action that is likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance without approval from the Minister for the Environment or delegate, unless the action is exempt. The approval of controlled actions allows proponents to implement their actions, subject to the environmental safeguards put in place to protect matters of national environmental significance through approval conditions. As at May 2016, there have been approximately 850 controlled action approvals and more than 1000 ‘not a controlled action particular manner’ (NCAPM) decisions that have been determined to not have the potential for a significant impact, on the basis that the action will be conducted in a particular manner. This has resulted in approximately 8300 conditions that have been applied to controlled action approvals and approximately 9100 particular manners attached to NCAPM decisions.
An Australian National Audit Office assessment that concluded in 2013–14 (ANAO 2014) found that any assurance that the Department of the Environment and Energy has regarding proponents’ compliance with action approval conditions was limited. In particular, the audit noted that the department was not well placed to demonstrate that it is effectively targeting its compliance monitoring activities to the areas of greatest risk. The auditors found that increasing workloads of the compliance monitoring staff led to the department essentially adopting a passive approach to monitoring, and, as a result, it had limited awareness of the progress of many approved controlled actions. In many cases, instances of proponent noncompliance (mostly of a technical nature, such as a missed deadline to submit a management plan) were either not identified by staff, or were identified but not referred for assessment and possible enforcement action.
In response to the audit findings, the department implemented a suite of measures to improve its compliance monitoring function. One key measure involved development of a risk-based prioritisation model, the National Environmental Significance Threat Risk Assessment tool. The tool is used to identify projects that present the greatest risk of impact on protected matters and the greatest potential for noncompliance. Projects identified to have the highest risk against these factors are subject to increased monitoring.
In addition, in 2014, the department developed more than 60 standard operating procedures to facilitate consistency in regulatory administration, as well as guidance documentation to assist holders of approvals to comply with conditions attached to controlled action approvals. Upgrades and enhancements to information technology systems have been made to support regulatory capability and intelligence functions, and further improvements are currently under way. In 2014, the department also started additional reporting on compliance monitoring activities in an annual compliance monitoring program.