1
Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
2010-2030
An Independent Review of Progress
PO Box 439, Avalon NSW 2107
With research assistance by
Judy Lambert AM, BPharm, BSc(Hons), PhD, GradDipEnvMgt, GradDipBusAdmin
Community Solutions
April 2015
Ma
cqu
ari
e M
ars
hes
© G
ren
ville
Tu
rner
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REVIEW OF PROGRESS: THE CONTEXT 1
Purpose of this review 3
HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL: INTRODUCTORY NOTE 4
2015 NATIONAL TARGETS 5
Appropriateness of the National Targets 6
Aligning Australia’s Strategy & targets with international initiatives 7
REVIEW OF PROGRESS 10
Review of progress against Target 1: Participation in biodiversity conservation activities 10
Review of progress against Target 2: Indigenous employment and participation 13
Review of progress against Target 3: Complementary markets for ecosystem services 15
Review of progress against Target 4: Native habitat managed for biodiversity conservation 19
Review of progress against Target 5: Fragmented landscapes restored 24
Review of progress against Target 6: Continental-scale linkages established and managed 28
Review of progress against Target 7: Reduced impacts of invasive species 33
Review of progress against Target 8: Nationally agreed science priorities guiding research 37
Review of progress against Target 9: Jurisdictional alignment with Australian Biodiversity 41
Conservation Strategy
Review of progress against Target 10: Long-term biodiversity monitoring and reporting 45
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 48
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
1
REVIEW OF PROGRESS: THE CONTEXT
As Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for 2010-20301 recognises:
“Australia’s biodiversity has developed largely in isolation over many
millions of years, making this continent one of the most biologically
diverse parts of the planet. It is estimated that Australia is home to as
many as 560,000 species. Many of these species are found nowhere else
on Earth…
We share the Earth with many other life forms that should be conserved
for their own sake as well as being, to varying degrees, essential for our
own existence”.
Our food, fibre, materials and energy are critically dependent upon products from nature.
Our culture, sport and recreation, artistic and spiritual lives are enriched by our natural
environments and we rely on life-supporting ecosystem services provided by nature –
oxygen in the air we breathe, soils that sustain our food production, water and nutrient
cycling and climate regulation.
As the only developed nation that is home to such a rich (megadiverse) natural
environment, we owe it to ourselves, to future generations and to our fellow human beings
globally to conserve our biodiversity.
The national targets set in the current Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy are
aimed at stopping the ongoing declines in biodiversity, so that we can “achieve healthy and
resilient biodiversity” and thus “provide a basis for living sustainably”. The task is to arrest
and reverse ongoing declines in biodiversity that have been identified in successive national
and international strategies.
Concerns persist at both the national and international scale. For instance Burchart et al.2
used 31 indicators in their 2010 assessment of progress towards a global target of reducing
the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. In that report, to which Australia was a contributor,
the authors conclude that:
“Most indicators of the state of biodiversity (covering species’ population
trends, extinction risk, habitat extent and condition, and community
composition) showed declines, with no significant recent reductions in rate,
whereas indicators of pressures on biodiversity (including resource
consumption, invasive alien species, nitrogen pollution, overexploitation, and
climate change impacts) showed increases… the rate of biodiversity loss does
not appear to be slowing”.
1 Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2010). Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. 2 Burchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B et al. (2010). Global biodiversity: indicators of recent trends.
Science 328, 1164-1168.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
2
Reporting on Global Biodiversity Outlook No. 4, published in time for the international
conference held in South Korea in 2014, Vaughan3 reported that the Outlook “paints a
damning picture of the [nearly 200 countries] governments’ efforts to meet a set of criteria
[the Aichi Targets] agreed in 2010 to slow destruction of species’ habitats, cut pollution and
stop overfishing by the end of the decade”. Vaughan reports that, of the 56 elements set
down to meet the Aichi Targets “only five are on track for 2020. Thirty-three show
progress, but at an insufficient rate to meet the targets. 10 show no progress, five show
things getting worse and three have not been evaluated”.
These global trends remain pertinent in Australia. The 2011 national report on the state
and trends of biodiversity4 is part of the State of the Environment Report. It states that:
“…the evidence from changes in extent, composition, and quality of
vegetation communities, and from case studies on selected species, points
towards continuing decreases in population sizes, geographic ranges and
genetic diversity, and the increasing risks of population collapses in
substantial proportions of most groups of plants, animals and other forms
of life across much of Australia”.
More recently, Morton & Sheppard (2014)5, in the recent CSIRO book on Australia’s
biodiversity, conclude that there is:
“undeniable evidence of significant biodiversity loss [which] demands
action”, and “There are grounds for optimism in the face of [these]
challenges, yet also a need for a greater effort to halt the decline in
biodiversity”.
Consistent with sound principles of adaptive management, it is important that progress is
reviewed regularly and adjustments made to strengthen progress towards biodiversity
conservation.
Two elements are important in reviewing the Strategy and its failure to date to turn around
Australia’s biodiversity crisis:
Is satisfactory progress being made in implementing the Strategy and the actions
set out in it?
Are the targets set appropriate to measuring progress towards achieving “healthy
and resilient biodiversity and providing a basis for living sustainably”?
3 Vaughan, A (6 Oct 2014). UN biodiversity report highlights failure to meet conservation targets. The
Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/06/un-biodiversity-report-failure-m... [accessed Oct 2014] 4 State of the Environment 2011 Committee: Australia State of the Environment 2011; Independent
report to Australian Government Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities, Canberra; Chapter 8: Biodiversity. 5 Morton S & Sheppard A (2014). Conclusions. In: Biodiversity: Science and Solutions for Australia. S
Morton, A Sheppard & WM Lonsdale (Editors); CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
3
Purpose of this independent review
In 2010, when Australian, New Zealand and State and Territory Government members of
the NRM Ministerial Council adopted Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for
2010 to 2030, they committed to a 2015 review to “assess progress in implementing the
Strategy, including against the national targets”. All governments committed to “continue
to work in the early years of the Strategy to evaluate the suitability of these targets for
progressing implementation to meet the three priorities action”, namely:
Engaging all Australians in biodiversity conservation…
Building ecosystem resilience in a changing climate…, and
Getting measurable results….
Whilst it is acknowledged at the outset that Humane Society International (HSI) does not
have access to all available information in relation to biodiversity conservation in Australia,
it can also be said that the transparency provided by an independently conducted review of
progress, using published and widely accessible information, should assist in the process.
Informed community and scientific perspectives can do much to strengthen the
governments’ review and to provide insights into possible changes that might assist in
better achieving the priority actions and their outcomes contained in the Strategy.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
4
HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL: INTRODUCTORY NOTE
Humane Society International, as the world’s largest conservation and animal welfare organisation, welcomes this opportunity to provide an independent assessment of progress against the agreed “interim national targets” set to “help stop the decline in Australia’s biodiversity”. This submission is made on behalf of HSI’s 60,000 Australian supporters.
HSI was a key NGO participant in the development of Australia’s initial National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (1996) and has had occasion to undertake an in-depth review of the process of national strategy development in Australia for the World Conservation Union (IUCN) (Kennedy and Glanznig 2002)
6. Such ongoing National Biodiversity Strategy review
work has been intertwined with a range of biodiversity policy documents heavily promoting Commonwealth leadership in the conservation of biological diversity and the implementation of effective national law, for example those published in our early years in cooperation with WWF Australia (WWF Australia and Humane Society International 1996a and 1996b)
7.
Over the past 20 years, HSI has undertaken a number key Federal Government advisory roles in relation to biodiversity conservation, including inaugural membership of the Commonwealth’s Biological Diversity Advisory Council, the Biological Diversity Advisory Committee, the State of the Environment Reporting Council, the Expert Committee on Biodiversity Hotspots, the National Coastal Council, the Australian Heritage Council and also the Endangered Species Advisory Committee.
HSI also played a key NGO role in the passage of the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
HSI has been responsible for the listing of many threatened species, threatened ecological communities, key threatening processes and National Heritage places under Commonwealth and state environment laws, including the EPBC Act and the New South Wales Threatened Species Protection Act, 1995. We have also participated in numerous recovery and threat abatement teams over the past two decades.
HSI operates the Wildlife Land Trust program supporting private landholders who are part of a national network of wildlife sanctuaries, and which now includes a covenanting program in cooperation with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). We have actively engaged in public consultation processes on referrals, administrative guidelines, and strategic assessment of fisheries, and have, on a number of occasions, undertaken court actions to protect biodiversity. HSI has also, over a long period, been an adviser to a number of Australian Government Delegations to international forums to which Australia is a Party, including meetings on biodiversity conservation, climate change and forest protection, global wildlife trade, and seabird, whale and shark conservation.
It is with the background of this experience, and the detailed understanding of biodiversity conservation, threatened species and ecological community protection in Australia we have gained in this process
8 (and the on-going devolution of Commonwealth environmental responsibilities) that
we provide, through the impeccable work of Community Solutions and Dr Judy Lambert, this independent review of progress against the targets set in Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for 2010 to 2030.
Michael Kennedy Director, Humane Society International (Australia)
6 Kennedy M & Glanznig A(2002). Australia. In: Carew-Reid J (ed). Biodiversity Planning in Asia – A
Review of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. IUCN Regional Biodiversity programme – Asia; Sri Lanka. 7 WWF Australia and Humane Society International (July 1996a). National Environmental Leadership:
Opportunities for a new Coalition Government. Position paper prepared by WWF and HSI, Sydney. WWF Australia and Humane Society International (July 1996b). National Environmental Leadership: Addressing the failings of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment. Position paper prepared by WWF and HSI, Sydney. 8 Quartermain E & Kennedy M (2014). Wildlife Habitat Protection: Conserving Australia’s Threatened
Ecosystems. Humane Society International Special Bulletin; Avalon, NSW.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
5
2015 NATIONAL TARGETS
In its opening section, the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030 (the
Strategy) commits to “10 interim national targets for the first five years”. Drawing on
published information, both from government and from independent sources, HSI has used
its best endeavours to assess the progress made towards achievement of each of these
2015 “interim national targets” and has rated each using a traffic light scheme, as follows.
Target largely achieved
Making progress, but some considerable way to go to achieve the target
Little or no progress towards achieving this target and/or Serious impediments to progress
National interim targets Progress to date
1. By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in the number of Australians and public and private organisations who participate in biodiversity conservation activities.
2. By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in employment and participation of Indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation.
3. By 2015, achieve a doubling of the value of complementary markets for ecosystem services.
4. By 2015, achieve a national increase of 600,000km2 of native habitat managed primarily for biodiversity conservation across terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments.
5. By 2015, 1,000km2 of fragmented landscapes and aquatic systems are being restored to improve ecological connectivity.
6. By 2015, four collaborative continental-scale linkages are established and managed to improve ecological connectivity.
7. By 2015, reduce by at least 10% the impacts of invasive species on threatened species and ecological communities in terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments.
8. By 2015, nationally agreed science and knowledge priorities for biodiversity conservation are guiding research activities.
9. By 2015, all jurisdictions will review relevant legislation, policies and programs to maximise alignment with Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.
10. By 2015, establish a national long-term biodiversity monitoring and reporting system.
Comment: The progress made is disappointing to a point where both the Targets and the
processes for implementing them require major review.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
6
In this context, HSI has considered each of these targets based on a need for ‘SMART’
measures appropriate to effective monitoring of progress towards achievement of desired
outcomes, rather than simply measuring administrative performance (i.e. ‘Have we
achieved what we said we would?’ rather than ‘Have we done what we said we would?’).
Appropriateness of the national targets set by Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy 2010-2030
Throughout the past decade, successive Australian Governments have recognised the
importance of monitoring as part of a cycle of adaptive management. In environment and
natural resource management, as in other fields of endeavour, it is important that the
targets set enable tracking of progress towards desired biodiversity outcomes. The
Department of the Environment9 defines such measures as SMART indicators - indicators
that are:
Simple (easily interpreted and monitored)
Measurable (statistically verifiable, reproducible and showing trends)
Accessible (regularly monitored, cost- effective and consistent)
Relevant (directly addressing issues or agreed objectives, such as those of the Matters for
Target for biodiversity conservation); and
Timely (providing early warning of potential problems)
Few, if any, of the national targets contained in Australia’s current Biodiversity
Conservation Strategy, satisfy these criteria.
As HSI highlighted in its 2009 submission10 in response to the Consultation Draft when the
current Strategy was being developed “this Strategy expresses aspirational goals that are
general in nature… “. While accepting the need for “a degree of generality” in national
goals, HSI expressed concerns that the aspirational nature of the targets failed to provide
national leadership for translation into action on the ground.
The Priorities for Action, with their Outcomes and Actions seek to make more specific the
actions needed to address each national Target. However, the lack of specificity of the
overarching Targets fails to provide an appropriate framework within which each of the
contributing parties (governments at all levels, business, community groups, and land
owners and managers) operate.
That these concerns are well-founded is supported by an observation by Lindenmayer et al.
(2012)11 that “While everyone thinks biodiversity monitoring is a good idea, this has not
translated into a culture of sound biodiversity monitoring, or widespread use of monitoring
9 Department of the Environment. Environmental indicators for Reporting.
http://www.environment.gov.au [First published 2006 as part of Australia’s State of the Environment reporting, most recently accessed 6/2/2015] 10
Humane Society International (2009). Comments on Australia’s Conservation Strategy 2010-2020: Consultation Draft. Submission in response to the Draft Strategy. HSI, Sydney. 11
Lindenmayer D, Gibbons P, Bourke M et al. (2012). Improving biodiversity monitoring. Austral Ecology 37, 285-294.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
7
data”. Lindenmayer et al. go on to identify some key barriers to improved biodiversity
monitoring and suggest a range of strategies to address these deficiencies.
Yeates et al. (2014)12, in the recently published paper on Australia’s biodiversity status and
trends, acknowledge the challenges in measuring long-term changes in biodiversity against
a background of short-term variations such as seasonal changes. However, in the face of
continuing decline in terrestrial and marine biodiversity in Australia, they stress the
“surprisingly few scientific data sets” that inform our understanding of “how Australia’s
biodiversity is faring”.
In reviewing progress in implementing Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-
2030, it is important that not only progress against the existing targets (which lack the
SMART characteristics needed to enable meaningful interpretation and tracking of trends),
but also the opportunities to make the national targets more meaningful in guiding
biodiversity conservation efforts, are addressed.
Aligning Australia’s Strategy & targets with international responsibilities
At the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, held in
Nagoya, Japan in October 2010, participating nations (including Australia) agreed to an
international Strategic Plan for Biodiversity for the period 2011-202013.
In adopting the Strategic Plan (identified as “a ten year framework for action by all
countries and stakeholders to save biodiversity and enhance its benefits for people”) each
country committed to:
Reviewing, updating and revising their national strategies and action plans to align
with the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020;
Developing national targets, using the Strategic Plan and its Aichi Biodiversity
Targets as a flexible framework, and integrating these national targets into the
updated national Biodiversity Strategic Action Plans (NBSAPs);
Adopting the updated NBSAPs as a policy instrument;
Using the updated NBSAPs for the integration of biodiversity into national
development, accounting and planning processes;
Monitoring and reviewing implementation of the NBSAPs and national targets,
using indicators.
The Aichi Biodiversity Targets adopted by the Tenth Conference of Parties as part of the
international Strategic Plan for Biodiversity provide a set of five Strategic Goals each with a
set of targets which, together, provide signatory countries with a sound framework from
which to reshape their own national biodiversity strategies.
12
Yeates DK, Metcalfe DJ, Westcott DA & Butler A (2014). Australia’s biodiversity: Status and trends. In: S Morton, A Sheppard & WM Lonsdale (Editors) (2014). Biodiversity: Science and Solutions for Australia; CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. 13
Convention on Biological Diversity (October 2010). Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2010-2020. Tenth Conference of Parties, Nagoya, Japan, 18-29 October 2010. http://www.cbd.int/sp/elements/default.shtml [accessed January 2015].
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
8
Included in Australia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity14 is a
chapter on progress towards the 2020 Aichi Biodiversity targets. However, Australia’s
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy was developed prior to the Tenth UN Conference of
parties and is not well aligned with them.
The planned 2015 review of Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, the
appropriateness of the interim targets set for 2015, and measurement of achievements
against them as an indicator of trends in biodiversity conservation provides an ideal
opportunity to reset the targets consistent with the international Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity and its Aichi targets.
Such an alignment would:
Provide for more strategic and measurable assessment of progress towards
biodiversity conservation;
Make transparent to all sectors of the Australian community Australia’s efforts to
conserve biodiversity and the mechanisms for measuring that progress;
Streamline national and international reporting of Australia’s progress towards
biodiversity conservation, reducing duplication of effort and enabling the same
datasets to address different needs.
While recognising the deficiencies in capacity to properly assess current progress in
implementing progress against the current national targets, the remainder of this report
will attempt to make those assessments using the best available national information.
Recommendations:
1. That the overarching national targets be reviewed to ensure that they
meet the criteria set for ‘SMART’ targets.
2. That the revision process include consultation and opportunities for
input from all sectors, particularly the scientific community and those
in the community with a strong understanding of the current and
ongoing decline in Australia’s biodiversity, and the approaches
needed to arrest and reverse the crisis.
3. That both the national targets and the outcomes sought be better
aligned with the Aichi Biodiversity targets used to assess progress in
implementing the UN’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.
4. That the Australian Government provide leadership in revising the
national targets and the outcomes and actions that underpin them.
That the changes be achieved working in collaboration with other
jurisdictions, scientists, business and community interests, including
non-government organisations with a demonstrated interest in the
conservation of Australia’s biodiversity.
14
Australian Government, Department of the Environment (May 2014). Australia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity; Department of the Environment, Canberra.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
9
Since the change of government in September 2013, Australia’s national
biodiversity conservation programs have undergone considerable
restructuring, making it difficult to assess the relative contributions of current
and changed or now-discontinued programs to the achievement of the
national Targets set in Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-
2030. What follows are HSI’s best endeavours to make these assessments,
based on available information.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
10
Review of progress against Target 1: By 2015, achieve a 25% increase
in the number of Australians and public and private organisations who
participate in biodiversity conservation activities.
Given the rich diversity of organisations and individuals participating in biodiversity
conservation activities, the vast array of different ways in which they are recruited and
come to such tasks, and the extent to which their participation may, or may not be in
biodiversity conservation as distinct from other land management practices, it is almost
impossible to assess progress against this target.
The Australian Government’s contribution currently appears to be primarily through the 20
Million Trees program and the Green Army program.
The Department of Environment’s 2013-14 Annual Report15 (p.27) documents 246 projects
approved in Round 1 of the Green Army program. Round 2 grants were open for
application late in 2014 and a third round will open shortly. While the Green Army
program’s objectives include national and international, as well as more local conservation
outcomes, a strong focus in “local priorities” and a reliance on supervised youth labour
casts some doubts over the ability of the program to deliver higher level conservation
outcomes.
Similarly, the 20 Million Trees program appears to place strong emphasis on “planting
native trees”. Although directed to “re-establishing green corridors and urban forests”, the
extent to which the 20 Million Trees program will contribute to restoration of Australia’s
biodiversity is not clear, especially given the challenges faced in actually restoring native
ecosystems.
Through the Indigenous Protected Areas program, Aboriginal people contribute, to varying
degrees depending on the nature of their funding agreements, to biodiversity conservation
in their land (see Target 2, below).
Organisations such as Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Bush Heritage Australia and Trust
for Nature have, over recent years, made a major contribution through the acquisition and
conservation management of numerous large properties.
Various covenanting programs run by governments and by environmental NGOs bring
private landholders into networks of individuals participating in biodiversity programs.
Through its Wildlife Land Trust program, HSI is one such contributor – its Wildlife Land
Trust having grown from 50 to 300 participating properties in the past five year, with 75 of
15
Australian Government Department of Environment (2014). Annual Report: Outcome 1- Biodiversity and Ecosystems. http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/publications/annual-report-2013-14-environment [accessed January 2015]
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
11
the sanctuaries having in-perpetuity protection through covenanting schemes and over 100
involved in wildlife care and rehabilitation programs16.
Various large corporations currently include among their corporate social responsibility
initiatives, a program in which staff and management have the opportunity to assist state-
based conservation agencies and/or environmental organisations such as Earthwatch with
their on-ground biodiversity work.
Then there are the vast numbers of community-based voluntary conservation
organisations, each working to conserve their local bushland. Some, but not all, are
members of state-based peak conservation organisations, some provide their annual
membership numbers as part of their annual REO returns to government, but not all are
registered organisations and not all members actively participate in biodiversity
conservation activities.
The Australian Government, as a lead agency with national and international
responsibilities to biodiversity conservation and the monitoring and reporting of progress
in that work, should take some responsibility for assessing progress against the national
targets set.
This Target, perhaps more than most others in the Australian Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy 2010-2030, is almost meaningless in that it meets few of the parameters that
define a SMART target. No reliable baseline against which progress towards the target can
readily be identified or measured. The closest current assessment comes to this is the
results of a 2011-12 national survey of ‘Community engagement with nature conservation’,
cited in Australia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity17.
However, the parameters required to properly assess trends in numbers of Australians
participating in biodiversity conservation activities are not regularly, consistently or cost-
effectively measured and they do not appear to provide information that enables early
warning of potential problems.
Performance rating: Red alert, since progress cannot meaningfully be
assessed using the current Target.
Recommendations:
5. That in reviewing the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
and its interim Targets, all jurisdictions collaborate to develop more
meaningful national Targets relating to the Outcomes identified in the
national Action Plan.
16
Humane Society International (2014). Wildlife Habitat Protection: Conserving Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems. Special Bulletin; HSI, Avalon NSW Australia, pp.11-12. 17
Australian Government Department of Environment (May 2014). Australia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Department of the Environment, Canberra.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
12
6. That the Target, and the Outcomes sought be more closely related to:
o Aichi target 1 (awareness of the values of biodiversity and the steps that
people can take to conserve and use it sustainably),
o Aichi target 2 (integration of biodiversity values into development
strategies, planning processes, national accounting systems and reporting
systems),
o Aichi target 4 (Governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have
taken steps to achieve… sustainable production and consumption… ); and
o Aichi Targets 17 to 20 (addressing enhanced implementation through
participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building).
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
13
Review of progress against Target 2: By 2015, achieve a 25% increase
in employment and participation of Indigenous peoples in biodiversity
conservation.
In its Annual Report for 2013-1418, the Australian Government Department of Environment
reports that “since 2007 the number of Indigenous rangers [nationally] has increased from
100 to 680, and is on track to reach a target of 730 rangers by 2015”.
Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) were introduced as part of the National Reserve System
in 1998. Defined as “an area over which the traditional Indigenous owners have entered
into a voluntary agreement to promote biodiversity and conserve cultural resources in line
with international management objectives”, IPAs play an important part in enabling
Indigenous people to be employed and participate in biodiversity conservation. Figures
provided by the Australian Government in June 201319 show that at that time 59 IPAs,
covering 47 million hectares of terrestrial Australia had been declared with three additional
areas being added in August 2013.
In September 2013, the Indigenous Protected Area program under which many of these
rangers were employed was transferred from the Department of Environment to the
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Australia’s Fifth National Report to the
Convention on Biological Diversity (May 2014) reports that “Between July 2009 and June
2013, 28 IPAs were declared” and that “The total of IPAs declared in Australia is 60,
covering just over 48 million hectares…”. The 2014 Collaborative Australian Protected
Areas Database (CAPAD19, managed by the Australian Government on behalf of all
jurisdictions) figures record the number of IPAs declared as 67, covering an area of 55
million hectares.
In September 2013 the national Working on Country program was also transferred to the
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and became part of the ‘Jobs, Land and
Economy’ program – a program focused not on biodiversity conservation, but on
“connect[ing] working age Indigenous Australians with real and sustainable jobs, foster[ing]
Indigenous business and assist[ing] Indigenous people to generate economic and social
benefits from economic assets”20.
This change in emphasis is of some concern, given an independent evaluation completed in
2010 by consultants WalterTurnbull21, which found that the Working on Country program
18
Australian Government Department of Environment (2014). Annual Report: Outcome 1- Biodiversity and Ecosystems. http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/publications/annual-report-2013-14-environment [accessed January 2015] 19
Australian Government Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database – CAPAD (30 June 2013). www.environment.gov.au 20
Australian Government Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Jobs, Land and Economy Programme. http://www.dpmc.gov.au/indigenous-affairs/about/jobs-land-and-economy [accessed 16 February 2015]. 21
Walter Turnbull (April 2010). Working on Country Evaluation Report. Report prepared for Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
14
was “a well functioning program and feedback received from participants, community and
other stakeholders in relation to the program was overwhelmingly positive” and ongoing
funding was “critical to success of the program in achieving environmental as well as social
and cultural objectives”.
Non-government conservation land management organisations, including the Australian
Wildlife Conservancy, Pew Trusts, Bush Heritage Australia and The Nature Conservancy are
contributing to the attainment of this national Target through their work in partnership
with Aboriginal people to increase sharing of traditional and western scientific methods of
managing for conservation.
In Australia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Australian
Government identifies this Biodiversity Conservation Strategy as having relevance to Aichi
targets 2 (biodiversity values integrated with development and poverty reduction
strategies and planning processes and being incorporated in national accounts and
reporting systems), 14 (restoration of essential ecosystem services… taking account of
Indigenous needs – see above), and 15 (relating to ecosystem resilience and the
contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks).
Performance rating: While concerns exist that changes in the focus of
Indigenous employment on their country has diminished the extent to
which Indigenous people are being supported to conserve biodiversity,
performance against this target has been assessed as having largely been
achieved. The challenge will be to maintain this achievement under
existing programmes.
Recommendations:
7. That the focus of the previous Working on Country program on promoting
biodiversity and conservation of cultural resources be reinstated within the
current Jobs, Land and Economy program.
8. That non-government organisations working with Aboriginal people to manage
their country for conservation outcomes, through collaborative use of
appropriate fire regimes, feral animal and weed control and other mechanisms,
receive public and private sector support for such work.
9. That in revising national Target 2, greater attention be paid to:
o Aichi target 2 (biodiversity values integrated with development and
poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and being
incorporated in national accounts and reporting systems),
o Aichi target 14 (restoration of essential ecosystem services… taking account
of Indigenous needs); and
o Aichi target 15 (relating to ecosystem resilience and the contribution of
biodiversity to carbon stocks).
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
15
Review of progress against Target 3: By 2015, achieve a doubling of the
value of complementary markets for ecosystem services.
In its Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity22, the Australian
Government identifies as relevant to this target its Environmental Offsets Policy, tax
concessions to Covenant Scheme Providers, the Victorian Government’s Bush Tender
program and the New South Wales BioBanking program.
In 2007, Cork, Stoneham and Lowe23, in a review of ecosystem services and natural
resource management in Australia, highlighted a number of complexities relating to the use
of market-based instruments in achieving sustainable use and management of natural
resources and the ecosystem services they provide. In doing so, they provided a set of
principles necessary for successful design and implementation of NRM programs. These
principles, proposed as “operational standards” are:
1. The type and condition of assets, actions by landholders, and on- and off-site environmental
outcomes arising from these actions and their costs are all highly variable. NRM investment
needs to take account of this variability in order to make ‘value for money’ decisions.
2. NRM investment allocation processes need to be able to compare the change in landscape
or ecosystem outcomes that will result from various site-scale investment options.
3. NRM investment allocation processes need reliable information including the ability to
reveal ‘hidden information’ such as the value of public goods, society’s preferences for
particular types of public goods and the cost of land use change.
4. Organisations involved in NRM processes should utilise the best available science to link
actions to outcomes, to inform decision-making and to build capacity in the selection and
delivery of policy tools including newer tools such as auctions and offsets.
5. These new policy tools may require regulation or legislation to support them in order to
identify landholder actions beyond ‘duty of care’.
6. It will be important to avoid schemes that involve implicit subsidies to landholders and it will
be important to achieve tangible outcomes with respect to the condition of natural assets.
There are World Trade Organization implications for schemes that provide subsidies.
7. Specific issues including multiple outcomes, the variable impact of different types of
intervention, different timeframes and natural variability will need to be incorporated into
the design of NRM investment mechanisms.
8. Where payments are made to landholders, the use of property rights (where feasible)
and/or landholder contracts can improve transparency, accountability and reporting (when
designed and managed appropriately).
9. NRM programs should collect appropriate environmental data that contribute to an
understanding of progress to policy goals as well as regional, state and national
environmental accounting processes.
22
Australian Government Department of Environment (May 2014). Australia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Department of the Environment, Canberra. 23
Cork S, Stoneham G and Lowe K (Aug 2007). Ecosystem services and Australian natural resources management (NRM) futures. Report prepared for the Natural Resource Policies and Programs Committee and the Natural Resource Management Standing Committee, Canberra.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
16
10. Regional strategies should articulate the value of public goods and society’s preferences for
particular environmental outcomes while allowing for the heterogeneity of the market to
further resource allocation decisions (see item 1 above).
11. Science research should address gaps in the understanding of ecosystem function., the link
between on-ground actions and environmental outcomes, and alignment with social
preferences and behavioural changes”
In an international paper on necessary conditions for what he describes as ‘environmental’
services payments, Wunder24 identifies as critical elements for success:
A voluntary transaction
A well-defined environmental service or a land use likely to secure its provision
At least one buyer
At least one provider effectively controlling service provision; and
If and only if the environmental service provider secures service provision
(conditionally).
Wunder goes on to say that while “several real-world schemes” satisfy all these criteria,
many more do not.
Increasingly the fact that markets for ecosystem services are not achieving their intended
outcomes is being recognised. In 2012, Pittock, Cork and Maynard25 described an
ecosystem services approach as providing a framework around which other management
strategies can be built. Acknowledging Australia’s important role in piloting “attempts to
identify and better value and manage ecosystem services”, they go on to highlight
deficiencies in the current system. “Failure to facilitate strategic dialogue within and
among governments at state and national scales” is seen as a systemic failure in
implementing policy commitments. A continuing habit of seeing every ecological debate as
a “contest between biodiversity and socio-economic benefit, where the resulting
compromise decisions diminish ecosystem health”, a failure to “start by considering the
relationships between ecosystem processes, services benefits and beneficiaries as a way to
inform planning”, and a propensity to “focus on only one or a few services” rather than to
consider things holistically are singled out for discussion.
Respected environmental and resource economist Professor Mike Young26 expresses
disappointment with the long-term effectiveness of most market-based instruments that
rely on government funding. Asked to comment on ‘complementary markets for
ecosystem services’, Professor Young said:
“In practice it is better to have regulations or a mandatory offset or
banking scheme. Paying for ecosystem services (PES) schemes are a waste
of time unless the person paying for the service is willing to pay for the
24
Wunder S (2008). Necessary conditions for ecosystem service payments. Paper presented at Economics and Conservation in the Tropics: Strategic Dialogue. 25
Pittock J, Cork S and Maynard S (2012). The state of the application of ecosystem services in Australia. Journal of Ecosystem Services. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.010 26
Young M (Feb 2015). Personal communication.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
17
service for ever. In most cases, however, when this is the case, it is
cheaper to acquire the land that supplies the service and manage it to
deliver what is wanted. Examples of local people paying their neighbours
for service delivery are very rare in Australia. Most Australian schemes
rely upon the transfer of money from Canberra or a capital city to a local
town. Budgets for these programs are being cut. One needs to be
particularly careful to ensure that in the process of establishing a PES
landowners don’t come to the conclusion that, if they are not paid to
maintain a service, they have a right to destroy the resource that provides
it”.
Young expresses greater confidence in mandatory offset or banking schemes than in
payment for ecosystem services. However, as the Australian Network of Environmental
Defender’s Offices (ANEDO) has identified in its submission to the Senate Inquiry into
environmental offsets27 “While certain types of environmental offset schemes do have some
quantifiable benefits – such as the Hunter River Salinity Trading Scheme in NSW – other
types of environmental offsets are far from proven. Many EDO clients, and relevant
significant scientific literature, note serious concerns as to whether biodiversity offsetting is
actually possible given the unique nature of local biodiversity. Furthermore, where offsets
are used, outcomes are difficult to measure”.
HSI has repeatedly expressed to government its concerns about environmental offsets and
biobanking schemes. In its 2009 submission in response to the review of the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act28, HSI recommended that “The use of offsets
is not appropriate for matters of national environmental significance” because they “lead
to net loss of biodiversity and habitat”. In a 2011 submission29 in response to the
Consultation Draft relating to a proposed environmental offsets policy under the EPBC Act,
HSI detailed its numerous concerns about environmental offsets.
Recently, the Australian Conservation Foundation (2 March 2015)30 has also revealed that
in New South Wales, the Major Projects Offsets Policy allows for double counting of
biodiversity and carbon offsets. Although this practice is specifically excluded under
national law, the recent moves by the Australian Government to delegate environmental
powers to the States cast serious doubts over the ability of complementary markets to
protect ecosystem services in New South Wales.
The Australian Government identifies the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
Target 3 as relevant to Aichi target 3, which relates to “elimination, phase out or reform” of
“incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity”.
27
Australian Network of Environmental Defender’s Offices (4 April 2014). Submission to the Inquiry into Environmental Offsets. www.edo.org.au 28
Humane Society International (January 2009). Submission to the Review of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999. HSI, Avalon NSW. 29
Humane Society International (10 October 2011). HSI Submission on EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy: Consultation Draft. HSI, Avalon, NSW. 30
Australian Conservation Foundation (2 March 2015). Flaws in plan to hand over assessment powers to states. Media Release.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
18
While Australia may have doubled the value of complementary markets for ecosystem
services, as defined by the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy target, measures of the total
ecosystem services market value are not readily obtained. Furthermore, considerable
concern exists that the intent of the target has not been achieved because of inadequate
attention to the design of programs providing payments for ecosystem services, with
resulting perverse outcomes harmful to biodiversity.
Performance rating: Although during the 1990s and early 2000s,
Australia was a leader in exploring complementary markets for ecosystem
services, the outcomes achieved are not extensive. Failure to adopt an
ecosystem services approach as a holistic framework within which to
improve biodiversity conservation, the establishment of markets
addressing a single or few resources providing services, and a lack of
continuity and commitment to voluntary NRM institutions create high
levels of caution about the ongoing outcomes of complementary markets
for ecosystem services.
Recommendations:
10. That the Australian Government provides leadership in ensuring the successful
application of market-based instruments to the conservation of ecosystem
services by facilitating strategic dialogue within and among governments at state
and national scales.
11. That the dialogue begin from a premise that the relationships between
ecosystem processes, services benefits and beneficiaries provides a way to
inform planning, rather than viewing ecological debates as a contest between
biodiversity and socio-economic benefits.
12. That greater attention be paid to the design of programs providing payments for
ecosystem services, to ensure that they do not result in perverse outcomes
harmful to biodiversity. In this context Australian participation in the work of the
UN Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services should
prove beneficial.
13. That where complementary markets are used in conserving biodiversity or
ecosystem services, government commitments be to long-term support for their
implementation through holistic actions.
14. That biobanking and offsetting schemes for the conservation of biodiversity and
ecosystem services not be applied where Matters of National Environmental
Significance are involved.
15. That in redefining Target 3 of the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
greater account be taken of Aichi target 3, which relates to “elimination, phase
out or reform” of “incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity”.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
19
Review of progress against Target 4: By 2015, achieve a national
increase of 600,000km2 of native habitat managed primarily for
biodiversity conservation across, terrestrial, aquatic and marine
environments.
In its Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity31, the Australian
Government reports that “Since the fourth national report was prepared over 2008-2009,
the area of native habitat in the NRS (National Reserve System) managed primarily for
biodiversity conservation across terrestrial, and inland aquatic environments in Australia
has increased by 424 552 square kilometres”. In the National Report, the Australian
Government asserts that “ABCS Target 4… has already been fully met, well ahead of its
timeframe”.
To these government achievements must be added the quite considerable expansion of
private land managed in perpetuity under conservation agreements established by
organisations such as Trust for Nature Victoria, Trust for Nature Queensland, the NSW
Nature Conservation Trust, and the Tasmanian Land Conservancy.
In addressing Aichi target 11, the Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological
Diversity states that “As of 30 June 2013, 16.52 per cent of Australia’s terrestrial areas and
inland waters are conserved under the NRS [National Reserve System]”. Based on the 2014
CAPAD database32 information for terrestrial protected areas, the NRS now includes “more
than 10,000 protected areas covering 17.88 per cent of the country – over 137 million
hectares”.
In that same report, the Australian Government reports that “In 2012, the Australian
Government established 40 new Commonwealth marine reserves around Australia. These
add more than 2.3 million square kilometres to Australia’s marine protected areas estate,
resulting in a total area of 3.2 million square kilometres of ocean being managed primarily
for biodiversity conservation.”
Governments have clearly substantially increased the areas designated part of the National
Reserve System, and for this they are to be commended.
However, two issues require further consideration in relation to terrestrial areas
conserved.
The first of these is the IUCN category applicable to each of the areas and thus the extent
to which they are areas “managed primarily for biodiversity conservation”.
31
Australian Government Department of Environment (May 2014). Australia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Department of the Environment, Canberra. 32
Australian Government Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database – CAPAD (2014). www.environment.gov.au
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
20
The 2014 CAPAD database32 for terrestrial protected areas indicates that of the 137 million
hectares in the NRS, just over 70 million hectares are in IUCN categories I to IV (indicating
that they are, or should be, managed primarily for biodiversity conservation).
As Taylor, Sattler and their co-authors indicate in their 2011 evaluation of what works for
threatened species protection33, “strictly protected areas” are the only one of four major
areas of conservation effort studied that are “robustly associated with stable or increasing
threatened species trends”. These authors go on to identify the prevention of complete
habitat loss as the major factor associated with this benefit of protected areas, and draw
attention to the need for “ongoing investment in abatement of pervasive threats”, namely
“unnatural fire patterns, exotic plants, animals and pathogens, and visitors”. They also
point out that IUCN category V and VI protected areas “do not show any correlation with
increasing or stable trends”, observing that this is “perhaps unsurprising due to the lesser
strength of protection in such protected areas”.
The second important consideration is the extent to which the additions to the NRS have
enhanced ‘comprehensive, adequate and representative’ protection of Australia’s
ecosystems and species diversity.
As Taylor, Fitzsimons and Sattler report in their 2014 assessment of a decade of protected
area achievements in Australia34 “growth [in the National reserve System] has been
uneven”. Even though the gap for ecosystem protection narrowed significantly:
“On land, 1,655 of 5,815 ecosystems and habitats for threatened species
remain unprotected”. .. “Protected area connectivity has increased
modestly for terrestrial protected areas, but this progress has been
undermined by increasing land use intensity in landscapes between
protected areas”. And “Protection of climate change refugia, connectivity
and special places for biodiversity is still low and requires high priority
attention”.
Australia’s 2012 expansion of the marine protected area estate by some 2.3 million square
kilometres is commendable.
However, deliberations by participants in recent World Parks Congress on the state of our
global oceans concluded that we need to “set a high bar for oceans protection” and
resolved “to secure almost a third of the world’s waters in marine sanctuaries by 2030”.
World-leading marine scientist Professor Callum Roberts, who led the setting of the 2003
global target, told the 2014 World Parks Congress35 shows that his research since the 2003
Durban Congress shows that protecting one-third of ocean habitats will best secure a wide
range of conservation and management benefits. The 10 percent proposed in Aichi target
33
Taylor MFJ, Sattler PS, Evans M, Fuller RA, Watson JEM and Possingham HP (2011). What works for threatened species recovery? An empirical evaluation for Australia. Biodiversity Conservation 20, 767-777. 34
Taylor M, Fitzsimons J and Sattler P (2014). Building Nature’s Safety Net 2014: A decade of protected area achievements in Australia. Report prepared for WWF Australia, Sydney. 35
IUCN (Nov 2014). World Parks Congress aims high to protect ocean life.www.worldparkscongress.org, November 2014.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
21
11 is no longer considered adequate to provide resilience to the impacts of climate change,
enable rebuilding of populations of fish and other marine life, and restoration of
sustainable production of fisheries.
As Taylor, Fitzsimons & Sattler (2014)34 report, although the 2012 expansion of Australia’s
marine National Reserve System brought total coverage up to one-third of Australia’s
waters, only 13.5 percent is in “highly protected areas such as marine national parks, no-
take or green zones”. In order to “meet a standard of 15 percent of each of 2,420 marine
ecosystems and 30 percent of the habitats of each of 177 marine species of national
environmental significance” an expansion of marine national parks, no-take or green zones
to nearly 30 percent of state and Australian waters would be required.
Perhaps even more disconcerting when considering progress against Australia’s
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Target 4 is the fact that management plans for marine
reserves declared in 2014, scheduled to come into effect in July 2014 have been “set aside”
to enable further consultation with all sectors of the community36.
In the absence of sound zoning and management plans and their implementation, Australia
is unlikely to achieve Target 4 of its Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.
Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Target 4 is identified as having relevance to
Aichi target 5 (relating to loss, degradation and fragmentation of habitat), target 7 (relating
to sustainable management of agriculture, aquaculture and forestry) and target 11 (relating
to conservation of 17% of terrestrial and inland water and 10% of marine areas through
“ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas…”).
Performance rating: While the Australian Government can properly claim
that it has substantially expanded the National Reserve System in recent
years, the gains are less robust than might at first glance appear. Not only
is a significant part of the increase in IUCN category V and VI reserves,
which lack adequate protection to conserve biodiversity, but the reserves
established continue to lack the representativeness and connectivity
required for sound biodiversity outcomes. And, in the case of the marine
reserve system, management remains ill-defined and is currently subject
to review. The performance rating for this Target is therefore one of
significant caution.
Recommendations:
In addressing this national Target, the area conserved within the National Reserve System
is an important consideration, as are the private lands covenanted in perpetuity for
conservation outcomes. However, consistent with the definitions of IUCN reserve
categorisation, consideration must also be given to the extent to which the reserved areas
36
Department of the Environment. About the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review. http://www.environment.gov.au/marinereservesreview/about... [accessed 11 Feb 2015]
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
22
provide protection and conservation management for the full suite of species and
ecosystems. It is therefore recommended:
16. That the Australian Government work in close collaboration with State
and Territory Governments and with non-government conservation
organisations to ensure that the National Reserve System and the
Marine Reserve System become “comprehensive, adequate and
representative” of species, ecological communities and ecosystems,
thus meeting long-standing national and international commitments.
17. That consistent with the recommendations provided by Taylor,
Fitzsimons and Sattler (2014), the Australian Government increase
funding for the National Reserve System to $170 million per year and
that appropriate funding be provided to enable the buy-out of fisheries
operations needed to achieve a comprehensive, adequate and
representative marine and coastal reserve system.
18. That the National Reserve System, Ecosystems of National Importance,
Wetlands of National Importance and Wild Rivers become Matters of
National Environmental Significance under the provisions of the EPBC
Act 1999, thus requiring the Australian Government Minister for the
Environment to approve any action that will have, or is likely to have, a
significant impact.
19. That the current reviews of marine protected areas be discontinued
and instead the Australian Government embrace the substantial body
of science already amassed in determining the composition of the
national marine reserve system, and ratify a world class network of
marine parks.
20. That governments increase funding allocations to enable greater provision of
incentives to landholders adopting permanent conservation covenants on their
properties, with emphasis placed on those parcels of land that are important in
protecting threatened ecological communities and those providing habitat
connectivity across the landscape.
21. That state and local governments provide rate relief to landholders with
in-perpetuity conservation covenants on their properties, thus
providing additional incentives for entry into such agreements to
protect high conservation value remnants, and to provide additional
resources for management of that land.
22. That governments review relevant taxation laws, so that conservation is
properly recognised as a legitimate land use, thus allowing owners of
land managed for conservation outcomes to deduct non-capital
expenditure on conservation works against income, and allowing land
protected by in-perpetuity covenants to be exempt from capital gains
tax on future sale or purchase of that land.
23. That activities such as mining and other activities causing substantial
change to biodiversity values not be permitted on land that is under a
permanent conservation covenant.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
23
24. That in reframing Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Target
4, greater account be taken of:
o Aichi target 5 (relating to loss, degradation and fragmentation of habitat),
o Aichi target 7 (relating to sustainable management of agriculture,
aquaculture and forestry); and
o Aichi target 11 (relating to conservation of 17% of terrestrial and inland
water and 10% of marine areas through “ecologically representative and
well connected systems of protected areas…”)
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
24
Review of progress against Target 5: By 2015, 1,000km2 of fragmented
landscapes and aquatic systems are being restored to improve ecological
connectivity.
Because this Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy national target is seen to relate
to several of the Aichi targets (5, 7, 11, 14 and 15), the Australian Government, in its Fifth
National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity37, identifies numerous national
programs as relevant.
That the programs addressing habitat fragmentation are numerous and diverse is
appropriate, given the threats posed by these actions.
As Taylor, Eber and Toni (2014)38 report in their assessment of changing land use on
Australia’s wildlife “Clearing, fragmentation or habitat degradation are recorded as threats
to 76% of nationally threatened species”. This conclusion is supported by several scientists
contributing to the recent CSIRO book on ‘science and solutions’ for Australian biodiversity
(Morton, Sheppard and Lonsdale)39.
Worboys and Mackey40 highlight in their 2013 discussion of ‘connectivity conservation’, the
importance of structure, management and governance in ensuring fragmented landscapes
are restored. The objectives of that restoration must be to restore the landscape in ways
that best enable conservation of whole-of-continent ecological processes and adaptation to
climate change.
That programs directed to restoring fragmented landscapes and aquatic systems are based
on sound scientific principles is also important if ecological functions are to benefit. As long
ago as 2003, the Australian Government (see Kemp 3 October 2002)41 used a scientific
approach to identify places across Australia that are rich in biodiversity but also under
threat. Many of these national ‘Biodiversity Hotspots’42 continue to be at risk from
resource extraction, native vegetation removal, population pressures and/or inappropriate
fire regimes. However, there is little evidence that they are being prioritised for landscape
restoration.
37
Australian Government Department of Environment (May 2014). Australia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Department of the Environment, Canberra. 38
Taylor M, Eber S and Toni P (2014). Changing land use to save Australian wildlife. WWF Australia, Sydney. 39
Morton S. Sheppard A and Lonsdale WM (Eds) (2014). In: Biodiversity: Science and Solutions for Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. 40
Worboys GL and Mackey B (2013). Connectivity conservation initiatives: a national and international perspective. In: Fitzsimons J, Pulsford I and Wescott G (eds). Linking Australian Landscapes: Lessons and opportunities from large-scale conservation networks; CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. 41
Kemp, The Hon Dr David (3 March 2003). Kemp declares biodiversity ‘Hotspots’ – A world first. Media Release. 42
Australian Government. Australia’s 15 national biodiversity hotspots. www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/conservation/hotspots/national-biodiversity-hotspots [accessed March 2015].
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
25
Community-based organisations such as Landcare and Greening Australia and those
committed to the development and conservation management of large-scale corridors (see
Target 6 for discussion) direct their efforts largely to restoration of fragmented landscapes.
Between 2007 and 2012 the Environmental Stewardship Program43 established long-term
management support for more than 150 farms that were successful in their bids for
contracts to “conduct management activities to protect and enhance the condition of
threatened ecological community(s) on their land”. These contracts, directed to restoration
of five different threatened ecological communities are currently being continued under
the existing National Landcare Programme. In a similar context, Greening Australia’s
Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation program44 sees stewardship payments being made to
landholders in New South Wales and in Western Australia’s wheatbelt to “integrate large-
scale establishment of native vegetation into existing grazing systems” to address land
degradation. No figures have been located to assess the scale of these projects. However,
Coggan et al. (2013)45 found that 53% of participants strongly agree and a further 36%
agree that “grants and tenders are a good way to deliver incentives to landholders”.
It is therefore important that the objectives of programs such as the National Landcare
Programme, the Twenty Million Trees Programme and the Green Army Programme are
clearly directed to restoration of fragmented landscapes, that appropriate incentives are
provided to landholders, and that the achievements of funded projects are measured
against these objectives.
If fragmented landscapes are to be restored, then land outside designated reserves must
be managed sympathetically to conservation outcomes.
Taylor, Fitzsimons and Sattler (2014)46, in their review of protected area achievements
express concern that protected area connectivity:
“has increased modestly for terrestrial protected areas in terms of the
median distance between neighbouring protected areas, but this progress
has been undermined by increasing land use intensity in landscapes
between protected areas”,
They go on to report that:
“Protection of climate change refugia, connectivity and special places for
biodiversity is still low and requires high priority attention”.
43
Australian Government. Environmental Stewardship Programme. National Landcare Programme. www.nrm.gov.au. [accessed January 2015]. 44
Cummings J, Gould L and Fifield G (2011). Whole of paddock rehabilitation – Landscape restoration grows up. Australasian Plant Conservation: Journal of the Australian Network for Plant Conservation, 20 (1), 19-20. 45
Coggan A, Measham T, Whitten S and Fleming D (2013). Socioeconomic monitoring for the environmental stewardship program. Report prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; CSIRO, Canberra. 46
Taylor M, Fitzsimons J and Sattler P (2014). Building Nature’s Safety Net 2014: A decade of protected area achievements in Australia. Report prepared for WWF Australia, Sydney.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
26
As McIntyre (2014)47 indicates, based on decades of sound scientific research, both the
amount and arrangement of habitat within the landscape are important, with optimal
habitat connections being determined by the land uses across an area.
As discussion of Targets 6, 7 and 9 all indicate, there are numerous factors currently
working contrary to the achievement of more effective restoration of fragmented
landscapes. Furthermore, it is difficult to locate science-based information that enables an
assessment of progress against this Target.
Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Target 5 is identified as having relevance to
Aichi target 5 (relating to loss, degradation and fragmentation of habitat), Aichi target 7
(relating to sustainable management of agriculture, aquaculture and forestry), Aichi target
11 (relating to conservation of 17% of terrestrial and inland water and 10% of marine areas
through ‘ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas…”),
Aichi target 14 (ecosystems providing essential services, taking into account the needs of
women, Indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable), and Aichi target
15 (ecosystem resilience through conservation and restoration of at least 15% of degraded
ecosystems).
Performance rating: Despite substantial investment by successive
governments and a considerable body of work by community-based
organisations and individual landholders to restore fragmented
landscapes, a lack of sound science-based monitoring and evaluation and
uncertainties around current emphasis of government programs in
restoration that will effectively ‘restore ecological connectivity’, progress
against this target can only be rated with caution.
That the programs addressing habitat fragmentation are numerous and diverse is appropriate, given
the threats posed by these actions. The structure of relatively natural habitats across the landscape,
the management of those habitats and the governance arrangements in place to support them are
all important.
Recommendations:
25. That a science-based whole-of-landscape approach be taken and
rewarded in planning and managing for biodiversity conservation, with
‘biodiversity hotspots’, climate refugia and other places of high
biodiversity significance given priority for support.
26. That the objectives of programs such as the National Landcare
Programme, the Twenty Million Trees Programme and the Green Army
Programme be clearly directed to restoration of fragmented landscapes
47
McIntyre S (2014). Farming, pastoralism and forestry. In: S Morton, A Sheppard & WM Lonsdale (Editors) (2014). Biodiversity: Science and Solutions for Australia; CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
27
and that the achievements of funded projects be measured against
these objectives.
27. That a strong Environmental Stewardship program, targeting remnants
of fragmented threatened ecological communities, climate refugia and
landscape connectivity, be established as a high priority for restoration
of fragmented landscapes.
28. That State and Federal laws governing the conservation of biodiversity
and, in particular, native vegetation be retained and strengthened to
ensure that clearing be permitted only where it can be shown to
“maintain or improve” the biodiversity of an area.
29. That, in revisiting Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Target 5
greater account be taken of:
o Aichi target 5 (relating to loss, degradation and fragmentation of
habitat),
o Aichi target 7 (relating to sustainable management of agriculture,
aquaculture and forestry),
o Aichi target 11 (relating to conservation of 17% of terrestrial and
inland water and 10% of marine areas through ‘ecologically
representative and well connected systems of protected areas…”),
o Aichi target 14 (ecosystems providing essential services, taking into
account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and
the poor and vulnerable); and
o Aichi target 15 (ecosystem resilience through conservation and
restoration of at least 15% of degraded ecosystems).
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
28
Review of progress against Target 6: By 2015, four collaborative
continental-scale linkages are established and managed to improve
ecological connectivity.
In its Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (May 2014)48, the
Australian Government notes that “Australia has revised the ABCS [Australian Biodiversity
Conservation Strategy] around three priorities for action, nine sub-priorities and ten
national targets”. One of the three priorities is “building ecosystem resilience in a changing
climate”. Continental-scale corridors are widely identified in the scientific literature as an
important part of that adaptation and resilience-building. In the Fifth National Report, the
Australian Government reports that the National Wildlife Corridors Plan “was completed in
2013… providing guidance for collaborative, whole-of-landscape approaches to conserving
Australia’s native plants, animals and other organisms”.
As long ago as 1991, Saunders and Hobbs49 identified the importance of large-scale
corridors in nature conservation. In 2008, as part of a national study of landscape
restoration Lovett and her colleagues (Lovett, Lambert, Williams and Price, 2008)50
identified nine landscape-scale projects designed to provide biodiversity connectivity. The
best-know of these Gondwana Link in the south-west of Western Australia, served to
varying degrees as a model for others including: Victoria’s Hindmarsh Biolink, the
Victorian/South Australian Habitat 141 project, the Alps to Atherton project – later to
become the Great Eastern Ranges initiative, the Western Woodlands Way in NSW, Broome
to Barmaga in northern Australia – also known as the Kimberley to Cape project, South
Australia’s Naturelinks program – later collaborating with the Northern Territory’s Eco-Link
program to become the Trans-Australia Eco-Link, Birdsville to (Harvey) Bay in Queensland,
and the north-east Tasmanian Landscape Linkages program. While some of these were
well under way at the time of that study, others were merely in planning stages (see
Williams, 2008)51.
Since then, much has been researched and written about large-scale biodiversity linkages
and the factors that contribute to their successful establishment and management to
improve ecological connectivity. Fitzsimons, Pulsford and Wescott (2013)52, in identifying
recurring themes relating to linking Australian landscapes, highlight the following:
The importance of a large scale of operation and the challenges that presents
The importance of a shared and guiding vision
48
Australian Government Department of Environment (May 2014). Australia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Department of the Environment, Canberra. 49
Saunders DA and Hobbs RJ (eds) (1991). Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton. 50
Lovett S, Lambert J, Williams J and Price P (2008). Restoring Landscapes with Confidence. Project Report to Land & Water Australia, Canberra PN 21578. 51
Williams J, 2008). Restoring Landscapes with Confidence: State of Knowledge Discussion Paper. Prepared for Land & Water Australia, Canberra PN 22052 52
Fitzsimons J, Pulsford I and Wescott G (eds) (2013). Linking Australia’s Landscapes: Lessons and Opportunities from Large-scale Conservation Networks. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
29
Social and economic factors that are critical to success
The role of leadership and ‘champions’
The importance of appropriate governance
The key role of funding for on-ground actions
The place of a conservation plan and the delivery of broader NRM objectives
The role of existing and new protected areas providing an essential core of
connectivity networks; and
The need for effective communication between diverse members of the
connectivity project.
Following extensive national consultation, the previous Australian government established
a National Wildlife Corridors Program – a program designed to “lay the foundation for a
new, collaborative whole-of-landscape approach to biodiversity conservation, one based on
voluntary cooperation and the efforts of communities, landholders, governments and
industry”. The role of the Australian Government was identified as being “to enable and
coordinate the efforts of all participants”53.
At that time, the Australian Connectivity Council54 - a consortium of organisations leading
various large-scale conservation connectivity projects – identified as Australia’s six “most
established wildlife corridors – Gondwana Link, Great Eastern Ranges Initiative, Habitat
141, NatureLinks, Tasmanian Midlandscapes, and the Trans-Australian Eco-Link”.
Both Gondwana Link and the Great Eastern Ranges Initiative are large-scale collaborative
projects which appear to have established a solid base of support from a broad diversity of
sources and are progressing well in creating linkages. Habitat 141, although it already
contains large areas of native vegetation in national parks and other reserves, is currently
in a period of planning and consolidation as it strives to fund new support for rehabilitation
work on private land needed to build connections between patches of native vegetation.
The Northern Territory component of the ambitious Trans-Australian EcoLink connecting
Arnhem Land with Port Augusta has largely stalled after a December 2012 mini-budget55 in
which the Territory Government announced that “Territory Eco-Link funding will cease,
resulting in savings of $380,000 in 2012-13 and $450,000 ongoing from 2013-14”.
Although the Land for Wildlife component of the project was continued, no new
investment in establishing the connectivity corridor is being undertaken, with the
conservation emphasis shifting back to ‘on park’ activities. South Australia’s NatureLinks
and Tasmania’s Midlandscapes, although important connectivity conservation initiatives,
could scarcely be viewed as “continental scale linkages”.
53
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). National Wildlife Corridors Plan: A framework for landscape-scale conservation. Australian Government, Canberra. 54
Australian Connectivity Council (2012). Corridor Plan an important step forward. Media Release. www.tasland.org.au/index.php/download_file/view/1011/126/ [ accessed February 2015] 55
Minister Matt Conlon (4 Dec 2012). Parks and Wildlife to receive funding increase. Media Release from the Minister for Parks and Wildlife. www.nt.gov.au
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
30
In its annual report for 2013-14, the Australian Government Department of the
Environment, in addressing Biodiversity and Ecosystem outcomes56, reports that the
National Wildlife Corridors Plan and associated management arrangements have been:
“discontinued as a result of changing Government priorities. New
programmes, such as the 20 Million Trees Programme, will support the
planting of native trees and associated understorey species to re-establish
green corridors and urban forests”.
In announcing the 20 Million Trees Program, the Australian Government57 indicated that it
“has committed $50 million over the four years… with funding to commence from 2014-15.
The program will involve competitive grants, delivered by individuals and organisations, and
larger-scale plantings, delivered by service providers”.
In December 2014 the government58 announced the allocation of $4.5 million to 57
projects “to fund Landcare and community groups, individuals and organisations to plant
native trees and associated understorey in a range of urban and regional projects across
Australia”. As part of this announcement the government indicated that the funding “will
contribute to re-establishing native vegetation, providing habitat to support our threatened
species, and creating greener spaces to improve the liveability of our cities and towns”.
More recently, in announcing Round 3 of the complementary Green Army program59, the
Australian Government provided four investment priorities for these applications:
Increasing the area, linkages between and condition of Australia’s native
vegetation
Protecting and enhancing Aquatic Ecosystems, including wetlands and sensitive
coastal environments
Protecting and conserving threatened species or ecological communities, migratory
species, and regionally significant species as well as where they live
Protecting and conserving Australia’s natural, historic and/or Indigenous heritage.
While these are objectives likely to be useful to biodiversity conservation, the current 20
Million Trees and Green Army programs lack the powerful commitment to collaborative
continental-scale linkages established and managed to improve ecological connectivity that
was contained in the previous National Wildlife Corridors Plan. The alert by Taylor,
56
Australian Government Department of Environment (2014). Annual Report: Outcome 1- Biodiversity and Ecosystems. http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/publications/annual-report-2013-14-environment [accessed January 2015] 57
Australian Government National Landcare Programme. 20 Million Trees. http://www.nrm.gov.au/national/20-million-trees [accessed 12 Feb 2015]. 58
Australian Government National Landcare Programme. 20 Million Trees: Competitive Grants Round One. http://www.nrm.gov.au/national/20-million-trees/competitive grants [accessed 12 Feb 2015]. 59
Australian Government Department of Environment. Green Army Round 3 Guidelines. www.environment.gov.au [accessed 12 Feb 2015]
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
31
Fitzsimons and Sattler (2014)60, that protected area connectivity “has increased [only]
modestly for terrestrial protected areas in terms of the median distance between
neighbouring protected areas, but this progress has been undermined by increasing land
use intensity in landscapes between protected areas”, heightens the need for a strong
commitment to large-scale corridor connectivity management for biodiversity outcomes.
Reporting to the Convention on Biodiversity Conservation, the Australian Government links
this national Target to Aichi Target 11 on conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services
which addresses “well connected systems of protected areas”. However, the indicators of
progress provided relate to the National Wildlife Corridors Plan. Although not considered
in the Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biodiversity Conservation, Australia’s
Target 6 should also have relevance to Aichi target 4, addressing sustainable production
and keeping use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits, Aichi target 5
relating to rate of loss of all natural habitats and Aichi target 7 relating to sustainable
management of agriculture, aquaculture and forestry ensuring conservation of biodiversity.
Performance rating: Although good progress has been made with some
large-scale connectivity projects, progress against the specific and
measurable target of “four collaborative continental-scale linkages
established and managed to improve ecological connectivity” must be
allocated a red alert.
While some of the major large-scale connectivity projects identified above are progressing
well, with their establishment and management to improve ecological connectivity
continuing apace, others have stumbled – largely due to reduced funding from
governments.
Recommendations:
The pressures of landscape fragmentation and the need to enhance capacity to adapt to
climate change are major factors in the ongoing decline of Australia’s biodiversity. It is
therefore recommended:
30. That the Australian Government provide leadership in re-establishing a
national landscape-scale program supporting collaborative
establishment and ongoing management of continental-scale linkages
to improve ecological connectivity.
31. That enduring institutional arrangements be established to support the
development of collaborative large-scale connectivity projects.
32. That recognised large-scale connectivity corridors be considered for
recognition as a Matter of National Environmental Significance under
the provisions of the EPBC Act 1999.
60
Taylor M, Fitzsimons J and Sattler P (2014). Building Nature’s Safety Net 2014: A decade of protected area achievements in Australia. Report prepared for WWF Australia, Sydney.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
32
33. That priorities for the landscape connectivity program be guided by
science, noting the available information on project design, climate
refugia, habitat fragmentation, and ‘biodiversity hotspots’.
34. That the National Reserve System, and its expansion to a more
comprehensive, adequate and representative system for Australian
biodiversity conservation, provide a core of these projects.
35. That those large-scale connectivity projects that have already made
significant progress be supported to progress their achievements to
date.
36. That in reviewing this national Target, greater account be taken of those aspects
of Aichi target 11 which addresses “well connected systems of protected areas”.
Australia’s Target 6 should also have regard to:
o Aichi target 4, addressing sustainable production and keeping use of
natural resources well within safe ecological limits,
o Aichi target 5 relating to rate of loss of all natural habitats; and
o Aichi target 7 relating to sustainable management of agriculture,
aquaculture and forestry ensuring conservation of biodiversity.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
33
Review of progress against Target 7: By 2015, reduce by at least 10%
the impacts of invasive species on threatened species and ecological
communities in terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments.
In its Fifth national report to the Convention on Biological Diversity61 in May 2014, the
Australian Government acknowledged that progress against this target “is proving more
challenging”. This was attributed to “the absence of baseline data and suitable monitoring
and measurement methodologies”.
Throughout the past decade, weeds have repeatedly been identified as a major problem
for agriculture, biodiversity and ecosystems in Australia. In 2006 Coutts-Smith and
Downey62 identified weeds as second only to land clearing as a threat to Australia’s
biodiversity.
In 2013 concurrent evaluation reviews of the Australian Weeds Strategy63 and the
Australian Pest Animal Strategy64 acknowledged the value of those strategies in providing a
national framework for collaboration in tackling the major problems posed by invasive
species, but went on to highlight a number of areas in which prevention, eradication,
containment and management of invasive species could be improved. These evaluations
provided important input to the development of new and updated Australian Pest Animal
and Weeds Strategies for 2014 to 2024, which are shaped around the national approach to
biosecurity.
Despite substantial investment in weed and pest animal control by successive national and
state governments, the impacts of invasive species on threatened species and ecological
communities are growing rather than being reduced.
As Auld and Johnson (2014)65 report:
Alien plant invasions have become increasingly important as their
frequency and scale grow through human-mediated activities.
In their 2006 study Coutts-Smith and Downey found that 45% of the 972 species listed as
threatened in New South Wales were at risk from weed invasion. In 2011 Evans et al.66,
61
Australian Government Department of Environment (May 2014). Australia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Department of the Environment, Canberra. 62
Coutts-Smith AJ and Downey PO (2006). The impact of weeds on threatened biodiversity in New South Wales; CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide. 63
Lambert J, Woodburn V and Clarke M (April 2013). Australian Weeds Strategy Evaluation. Report to Evaluation Steering Committee – Australian Weeds Committee, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry, Canberra. 64
Woodburn V, Lambert J and Clarke M (April 2013). Australian Pest Animal Strategy Evaluation. Report to Evaluation Steering Committee – Vertebrate Pests Committee, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry, Canberra. 65
Auld BA and Johnson SB (2014). Invasive alien plant management. CAB Reviews 9, 1-12. http://www.cabi.org/cabreviews [accessed Dec 2014] 66
Evans M, Watson JEM, Fuller RA, Venter O, Bennett SC, Marsack PR and Possingham HP (2011). The spatial distribution of threats to species in Australia. BioScience, 61(4), pp 281-289.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
34
identified 61% of the approximately 1700 nationally listed threatened species to be at risk
from invasive species – second in impact only to habitat loss (81% of threatened species
affected). Several of the nationally agreed Key Threatening Processes are directed to
invasive plant and animal species and most now have a Threat Abatement Plan directed to
their research and management.
However, as the Invasive Species Council identifies in its September 2014 primary
submission67 to the Senate Inquiry into ‘the adequacy of arrangements to prevent the entry
and establishment of invasive species likely to harm Australia’s natural environment’:
“Although there have been many improvements in biosecurity,
approaches to environmental biosecurity tend to be tacked onto existing
biosecurity structures that prioritise industry interests. Although there are
many overlaps with industry biosecurity, environmental biosecurity is
more challenging, with a greater scale and complexity of threats, fewer,
management options and more limited resources”.
In its Fifth National report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Australian
Government identifies as relevant to this national Target, Aichi target 9, in which identified
alien species and pathways are identified and prioritised, priority species are controlled or
eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction
and establishment; Aichi target 10 relating to anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs and
other vulnerable ecosystems, and Aichi target 12, relating to prevention of extinction of
known threatened species are also relevant to Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy Target 7.
Performance rating: Failure to make substantial progress in preventing
and managing the impacts of invasive species on threatened species and
ecological communities in terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments,
means that progress against this national Target must be rated a red
alert.
Recommendations:
While much has been done in recent years to improve Australia’s approach to biosecurity
and to begin to build a more coordinated national system effective across all jurisdictions,
much remains to be done if the impacts of exotic species on biodiversity and ecosystem
services are to be reduced. HSI therefore recommends:
37. That the threats posed by invasive species to threatened species,
ecological communities and ecosystems be elevated to a status
equivalent to that given to species impacting on agricultural and other
67
Invasive Species Council (Sept 2014). Stopping new invasive species: Primary Submission. Submission to Senate Inquiry, Invasive Species Council, Fairfield Vic.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
35
industries and that programs recognising this need be established and
properly resourced.
38. That, consistent with the recommendations of the Hawke review
(2009)68 of the EPBC Act 1999, invasive species posing a risk to
significant environmental aspects of Australia’s biodiversity, be
specifically addressed under the provisions of the Act, including triggers
to conduct an environmental import risk assessment of both existing
permitted imports and those proposed in the future.
39. That risk assessment processes determining permissible entry of new
species to Australia be science-based, taking account of likely
environmental impacts as well as impacts on industry, and that they be
conducted through transparent processes open to public input.
40. That the capacity of local landholders and others in the community to
recognise and report unusual plant and animal species is strengthened
and that such community-based surveillance be supported by an
enhanced network of NRM professionals trained in the biosecurity
pathway.
41. That, as has repeatedly been called for in reviews of invasive species
management and control, the Australian, State and Territory
governments make every effort to better harmonise and build
consistency between their various laws and programs governing
invasive species.
42. That, as the impacts of climate change bring increased likelihood of
relocation and new establishment of some weed species, relevant
members of the scientific community, the NRM sector, rural
landholders and others in the community be made aware of likely weed
spread and alerted to the need for renewed vigilance.
43. That governments at all levels collaborate to ensure that Threat
Abatement Plans are developed and implemented for all invasive-
species related Key Threatening Processes recognised nationally under
the provisions of the EPBC Act 1999.
44. In addressing recommendations to reduce the impacts of invasive
species on threatened species and ecological communities in terrestrial,
aquatic and marine environments, HSI supports the full suite of
recommendations made by the Invasive Species Council in its
September 2014 submission67 to the Senate Inquiry into invasive
species.
45. In reviewing this national Target, full account should be taken of:
o Aichi target 9, in which alien species and pathways are identified
and prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and
measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their
introduction and establishment.
68
Hawke A (Oct 2009). The Australian Environment Act. Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Report to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
36
o Aichi target 10 relating to anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs
and other vulnerable ecosystems; and
o Aichi target 12, relating to prevention of extinction of known
threatened species are also relevant to Australia’s Biodiversity
Conservation Strategy Target 7.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
37
Review of progress against Target 8: By 2015, nationally agreed
science and knowledge priorities for biodiversity conservation are
guiding research activities.
The Australian Government, in its Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological
Diversity69, highlights its $20 million per year investment in the National Environmental
Research Program (2011-2015), the National Environmental Information Infrastructure
requirements and the Atlas of Living Australia as key areas of progress towards this target.
In the Biodiversity and Ecosystems Outcomes section of its 2013-14 Annual Report70, the
Department of Environment identifies funding of 139 research projects conducted through
five multi-institutional research hubs “delivering ‘public good’ focused environmental
research designed to support evidence-based decision making by environmental managers
and policy makers”. That same Annual Report also indicates that “From July to December
2013, 97% of research [funded under the NERP] was publicly available”
In December 2014, Minister for the Environment, The Hon. Greg Hunt announced71 that
the National Environmental Research Program is being replaced by a National
Environmental Science programme, to which the Australian Government is committing
$142.5 million over the next six years. To be delivered through six theme-based research
hubs, including a Marine Biodiversity Hub and a Threatened Species Recovery Hub, the
program is intended to “provide certainty to researchers so that science programmes can
be planned and completed in a way which ensures flexibility and alignment with current
environmental policy needs”
The Atlas of Living Australia72, funded by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure
Strategy and the Super Science Initiative that ran from 2009 to 2013, was designed to
“create a national database of all of Australia’s flora and fauna that could be accessed
through a single, easy to use web site”. Freely open to public access the intent of the Atlas
was threefold:
To improve our understanding of Australian biodiversity
To assist researchers to build a more detailed picture of Australia’s biodiversity;
and
To assist environmental managers and policy makers develop more effective
means of managing and sustaining Australia’s biodiversity.
To varying degrees, these three outcomes (all of which contribute to attaining Target 8 of
the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy) are all progressing under the
69
Australian Government Department of Environment (May 2014). Australia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Department of the Environment, Canberra. 70
Australian Government Department of Environment (2014). Annual Report: Outcome 1- Biodiversity and Ecosystems. http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/publications/annual-report-2013-14-environment [accessed January 2015] 71
Hunt, The Hon. Greg (10 December 2014). Leading researchers selected for biodiversity and climate science hubs. Media Release 72
Atlas of Living Australia. www.ala.org.au
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
38
collaborative effort of museums and other scientific institutions around the country, and
with input from the wider community.
The application of available science to better policy-making is a weak link in this process.
Perhaps the strongest indicator of this failing is the reluctance of the Australian
Government to accept overwhelming scientific evidence of human-induced climate change
and the need for a paradigm shift if Australia is to avoid catastrophic impacts on the
environment, people’s lives and the economy.
Highlighting the lack of direct connection between science and policy-making was the
decision by the current Australian Government, when first elected, not to appoint a
Minister for Science. To the extent that science has now been added to the portfolio
responsibilities of the Minister for Industry, this situation has been improved.
More directly related to the lack of application of sound science in informing biodiversity
conservation is the failure of successive Australian Governments to adopt and act on
National Biodiversity Hotspots program mapping completed in 200573.
However, as Morton and Sheppard (2014)74 conclude in their recent book on science and
solutions for Australia’s biodiversity:
“Science has a strong place in management, yet the scale and complexity
of the challenge are such that biodiversity science is only just beginning to
quantify ecological and social benefits and their interdependencies; and
In Australia, and globally, effective policy responses from governments to
the inter-linked social and ecological aspects of biodiversity are still in the
process of maturing”.
As Martin et al. (2014)75 highlight “Plans for managing biodiversity have to be formulated in
the context of constrained resources, imperfect knowledge and likely conflicts between
value sets”. As these authors go on to demonstrate, sound science is an essential
underpinning to the structured decision-making needed to properly understand the
complex problems faced.
If the fledgling national Ecosystem Science Council proposed by Ecosystem Science Long-
term Plan Steering Committee (2014)76 gains the support and collaboration it deserves,
then achievement of Target 8 may become a reality. However, it is unrealistic to expect
that the Target will be achieved within the timeline proposed in Target 8.
73
Lambert J and Kennedy M (January 2009). Conserving Australian landscapes beyond the National Reserve System. Humane Society International Special Bulletin, Avalon, New South Wales. 74
Morton S and Sheppard A (2014). Conclusions. In: Morton S, Sheppard A and Lonsdale WM (eds). Biodiversity: Science and Solutions for Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. 75
Martin TG, Carwardine J, Broadhurst L, Ferrier S, James C, Sheppard A, Whitten S and Chades I. Tools for managing and restoring biodiversity. In: Biodiversity: Science and Solutions for Australia. S Morton, A Sheppard & WM Lonsdale (Editors); CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. 76
Ecosystem Science Long-term Plan Steering Committee (2014). Foundations for the Future: A long-term plan for Australian ecosystem science.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
39
The vision guiding the Long-term Plan has a 20 year timeline, namely:
“In twenty years’ time the status of Australia’s ecosystems and how they
change will be widely reported and understood, and the prosperity and
wellbeing they provide will be secure. To enable this, Australia’s national
ecosystem science will be well coordinated, collaborative, and connected.
Knowledge from ecosystem science will be available and essential to
government, industry, the general public, and for research and
educational institutions”.
Recent national cuts to the science budget and to environmental programs77, and a
resulting decrease in capacity of organisations such as CSIRO, cast doubts over whether
even the vision for the Ecosystem Science Long-term Plan can be achieved within the
timeframe set.
The Aichi Targets identified as relevant to Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
Target 8, are Aichi targets 18 and 10. Aichi target 18 relates to the integration of
Indigenous knowledge into conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (an area in
which some progress has been made). Aichi target 19 relates more directly to Australia’s
Strategy Target 8, addressing the role of knowledge, science base and technologies into
biodiversity conservation and management. Notably, this is not an Aichi target against
which the Australian Government reports having made significant progress at the time of
its Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Performance rating: While this is an area in which scientists involved in
the sciences most relevant to biodiversity conservation do appear to be
making significant progress, two issues raise caution. The first of these is
the severe cuts to environmental sciences budgets by government,
combined with an apparent reluctance of the current Australian
Government to accept science-based evidence as a basis from which to
formulate policy. The second is the complexity of the challenge and the
need for a realistic timeframe for inclusion in the Target.
Recommendations:
The need for sound, nationally agreed science and knowledge priorities to guide not only
research activities, but also policy and programs for biodiversity conservation, is widely
recognised. In reviewing national Target 8, HSI therefore recommends:
46. That the six priority directions for the future of Australian ecosystem
science outlined in the Ecosystem Science Long-Term Plan (2014) be
supported by governments, research scientists and the community.
77
Science and Technology (May 2014). Budget science cuts and changes. www.scienceaandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/news/budget-cuts-and-changes/ [accessed January 2015]
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
40
47. That mechanisms to enhance collaboration between ecosystem
scientists from different disciplines and between ecosystem scientists
and end-users (at policy, program and on-ground levels) be developed,
implemented and supported.
48. That, recognising the long-term nature of many ecological changes,
dedicated long-term funding be committed for ecosystem research.
49. That systematic, continental-scale monitoring essential for ecosystem
variables be established and maintained to identify trends in the health
of our ecosystems.
50. That ecosystem science datasets be professionally archived and made
easily accessible to the broad range of potential end-users who will
benefit from that information.
51. That the science and datasets that underpinned the national
Biodiversity Hotspots program be reviewed and updated as an
important source of information on which to build conservation
programs.
52. That processes be put in place to ensure that ecosystem science is
provided to school students and the wider community in ways that
inspire their knowledge and appreciation of Australia’s ecosystems.
53. That governments, the Ecosystem Science Council and others provide
leadership in ensuring greater collaboration and coordination of
ecosystem science.
54. That government funding programs are established in ways that not
only enable, but also facilitate the formation of partnerships and
collaborations, rather than the current competitively-based funding
models.
55. That community-based research and knowledge initiatives such as the
Atlas of Living Australia, continue to be supported and promoted to
potential users.
56. In reviewing national Target 8, full account be taken of Aichi target 19,
which relates directly to Australia’s Strategy Target 8, addressing the
role of knowledge, science base and technologies into biodiversity
conservation and management.
Aichi target 18, which relates to the integration of Indigenous
knowledge into conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (an
area in which some progress has been made) is also relevant.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
41
Review of progress against Target 9: By 2015, all jurisdictions will
review relevant legislation, policies and programs to maximise alignment
with Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.
Despite an assertion by the Australian Government, in its Fifth National Report to the
Convention on Biological Diversity78, that this aspect of Australia’s Biodiversity
Conservation Strategy is one against which we are making good progress, the indications
are largely to the contrary.
The downward trend in legislative protection of Australia’s biodiversity began with the
major amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999
(EPBC Act) in 2006.
While Queensland and New South Wales have, in more recent times, reviewed legislation,
policies and programs relevant to biodiversity conservation, the changes made have largely
been counter-productive to conservation outcomes.
Changes made by the Newman LNP Government in Queensland saw the ecologically
significant and diverse ecosystems of the Channel Country placed at serious risk from
mining and coal seam gas exploration after the Wild Rivers Act was revoked, significant
areas of biodiversity were threatened by large-scale coal mines after changes to the
Minerals & Energy Act, areas of the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef were targeted
for the dumping of mine spoil waste, coastal biodiversity was threatened by prospective
development after sea level rise projections were removed from planning maps, and hard-
won native vegetation protection regulations were reversed.
Since coming to office in 2011, the NSW Coalition Government has also introduced changes
to forestry approvals that allow logging of steeper slopes, changes to the Crown Lands Act
that enable uses of Travelling Stock Routes and other parcels of high conservation value
public land to be sold for other purposes damaging to biodiversity conservation, introduced
the so-called ‘10/50 rule’ allowing clearing of significant vegetation on poorly defined
‘bushfire prone’ lands. It also appears that the NSW Government is considering a proposal
by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage to amend the current Threatened Species
Priority Action Statement so that current recovery and threat abatement strategies for 28
species with new strategies that merely seek to maintain existing populations in a fixed
number of locations, rather than striving for recovery of the listed species.
A recent report by the Independent Biodiversity Legislation Review Panel in NSW79 has
recommended changes to native vegetation legislation that could result in a major increase
in the amount of native vegetation cleared. Based on its September 2014 submission to
78
Australian Government Department of Environment (May 2014). Australia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Department of the Environment, Canberra. 79
Independent Biodiversity Legislation Review Panel (18 December 2014). A review of biodiversity legislation in NSW: Final Report. Report prepared for the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
42
this review80 and the outcomes obtained in the final report from the review panel, HSI
notes that the NSW legislative review shows little sign of leading to a maximising of
alignment of that State’s biodiversity laws with the Australian Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy.
In Western Australia biodiversity conservation is heavily reliant on an outdated Wildlife
Conservation Act introduced in 1950 – a piece of legislation that the EDOs of Australia81
describe as providing “a very basic level of protection to plants and animals in WA” and
lacking in powers to “regulate the most common types of activities which are likely to have
a significant impact on plants and animals, such as development resulting in the clearing or
alternation of habitat, land use change, the pollution of waterways or reduction of
groundwater availability”.
That same report by the EDOs of Australia clearly indicates that in no State or Territory do
the planning laws explicitly incorporate core EPBC Act standards
With devolution of environmental powers of the Commonwealth to States and Territories
proceeding apace, these changes are all contrary to increasing biodiversity conservation by
maximising alignment with Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.
The current Australian Government’s policy of devolving its legislative powers to protect
the environment under provisions of the EPBC Act is perhaps one of the single most
important impediments not only to achieving Target 9 of the Australian Biodiversity
Conservation Strategy and relevant Aichi targets, but also to ever achieving long-term
ecological sustainability in Australia. Combined with moves by state and territory
governments to weaken environmental protections across the board, the Commonwealth’s
planned abrogation of responsibilities to protect all Matters of National Environmental
Significance (MNES) is likely to set the evolution of environmental law in Australia back
some 30 years – Target 9 will never be achieved.
As the 2013 evaluation of the Australian Weeds Strategy (Lambert, Woodburn and Clarke)82
clearly demonstrated, while rural landholders and land managers would welcome greater
‘harmonisation’ of legislation and policy, government weed control and management,
efforts to achieve that ‘harmonisation’ across jurisdictions are fraught with challenges.
In a similar vein, alignment of legislation, policy and programs to maximise alignment with
Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, and through that, to increase protection of
Australia’s biodiversity, will not come easily. However there is little evidence to date of
efforts to even begin that task.
80
Humane Society International (5 September 2014). Submission in response to the Independent Biodiversity Legislation Review Panel’s Independent Panel issues Paper. HSI, Avalon. 81
EDOs of Australia (July 2014). Assessment of the adequacy of threatened species & planning laws. Report prepared for the Places You Love Alliance. EDO NSW, Sydney. 82
Lambert J, Woodburn V and Clarke M (April 2013). Australian Weeds Strategy Evaluation. Report to Evaluation Steering Committee – Australian Weeds Committee, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry, Canberra.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
43
This is a Target that the Australian Government identifies as aligning in part with Aichi
target 2 (integration of biodiversity values into development, poverty reduction and
planning processes), Aichi target 4 (implementation of plans for sustainable production and
consumption, keeping NRM use well within safe ecological limits), and Aichi target 17
(implementation of an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy
and action plan).
Performance rating: Although the Australian Government rates
performance against Aichi target 17 highly, there is substantial evidence
indicating that at the national level devolution of powers is seriously
downgrading commitment and capacity to protect Australia’s biodiversity,
and at State and Territory levels any reviews of legislation are leading to
outcomes contrary to the objectives of the Australian Biodiversity
Conservation Strategy. Progress against Target 9 must therefore be rated
as a red alert.
Recommendations:
There is widespread agreement that, despite whatever efforts might be currently being
made by national, state and territory governments, biodiversity conservation and effective
legislative protection in Australia is going backwards. More concerted effort, through
collaborative action by all stakeholders, is required. In reviewing progress against this
national Target, HSI recommends:
57. That the Australian Government retain its powers to address all Matters
of National Environmental Significance under a strengthened EPBC Act,
recognising that:
o Only the Australian Government can deliver on Australia’s
international environmental obligations
o States have an inherent conflict of interest in assessing the
environmental impacts of development proposals in the national
interest, while also seeking to reap short-term economic benefits
from such developments.
o National environmental issues often cross jurisdictional
boundaries and thus need national leadership in determining their
appropriateness.
o States and Territories have already demonstrated a lack of
capacity to appropriately assess major projects.
58. That the Australian Government take a lead in coordinating a review of
existing biodiversity legislation in all jurisdictions, with a view to better
coordinating and harmonising efforts to conserve biodiversity and
ecosystem functions, including the listing of threatened species and
ecological communities, strengthening government obligations,
increasing access to courts for public enforcement, and doing so while
maintaining Commonwealth national legislative oversight.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
44
59. That a revised and updated set of national Targets within the Australian
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy provide the framework for a more
consistent approach, and that the Aichi targets provide a basis for this
update.
60. That in undertaking this review, all jurisdictions commit to new
generation legislation, directed to improving legislative protection of
biodiversity based on best available science, taking account of the likely
impacts of climate change on Australia’s biodiversity, and addressing
the cumulative impacts and other systemic failures of current
legislation.
61. That in undertaking this alignment process, greater consideration be
given to sustainable agricultural, fisheries and forestry production in
those areas of the landscape that are not reserved for biodiversity
conservation outcomes.
62. That in seeking to improve the national Targets for biodiversity
conservation, the Australian, State and Territory Governments take
account of:
o Aichi target 2 (integration of biodiversity values into
development, poverty reduction and planning processes),
o Aichi target 4 (implementation of plans for sustainable production
and consumption, keeping NRM use well within safe ecological
limits); and
o Aichi target 17 (implementation of an effective, participatory and
updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan).
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
45
Review of progress against Target 10: By 2015, establish a national
long-term biodiversity monitoring and reporting system.
In its 2013-14 Annual report on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Outcomes83, the Australian
Government’s Department of the Environment places strong emphasis on the Monitoring,
Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) Plan developed as part of the national
Biodiversity Fund. State of the Environment Reporting and the development of a MERI tool
and its use in tracking Australian Government natural resource management investments
are the key aspects of progress reported in the Australian Government’s Fifth National
Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity84.
However, the changing nature of government programs as each new government comes to
power, and with those changes, shifts in emphasis of these monitoring tools have long
been a concern to ecologists and other environmental scientists striving to track changes in
biodiversity status and condition.
As Lindenmayer et al. (2012)85 identify:
“Biodiversity monitoring is critically important for fore-warning of impending
species declines and/or extinctions, creating triggers for management intervention,
quantifying the effectiveness of management practices designed to conserve
biodiversity, and accumulating the data to underpin metrics reflecting the status of
biodiversity.
National long-term monitoring and reporting are essential to achieve these outcomes. Yet,
as Lindenmayer et al. also highlight “biodiversity monitoring has a chequered history in
environmental management and conservation practice both in Australia and elsewhere”.
Yeates et al. (2014)86, assert that, with a small number of notable exceptions “little effective
ecological monitoring is conducted in Australia”. This they identified as a significant
contributor to “disagreement about how to manage [is] caused by disagreement about
what the poor-quality monitoring data are actually telling us”.
The Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network’s (TERN) is a large-scale, long-term ecological
research and monitoring program (Burns et al., 2014)87 in which several universities,
83
Australian Government Department of Environment (2014). Annual Report: Outcome 1- Biodiversity and Ecosystems. http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/publications/annual-report-2013-14-environment [accessed January 2015] 84
Australian Government Department of Environment (May 2014). Australia’s Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Department of the Environment, Canberra. 85
Lindenmayer D, Gibbons P, Bourke M et al. (2012). Improving biodiversity monitoring. Austral Ecology 37, 285-294. 86
Yeates DK, Metcalfe DJ, Westcott DA & Butler A (2014). Australia’s biodiversity: Status and trends. In: S Morton, A Sheppard & WM Lonsdale (Editors) (2014). Biodiversity: Science and Solutions for Australia; CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. 87
Burns E, Lindenmayer D, Tennant P, Dickman C, Green P, Hanigan I, Hoffman A, Keith D, Metcalfe D, Nolan K, Russell-Smith J, Wardle G, Welsh A, Williams R and Yates c. (2014). Making ecological
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
46
government research agencies, State/Territory agencies, and the Atlas of Living Australia
are collaborating. With funding support from the Australian Government’s National
Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS), the Long-term Ecological Research
Network (LTERN) has developed a checklist of characteristics for “effective and influential
long-term monitoring” and several of its members are involved in decades-long research at
sites producing condition and trend data. LTERN goes some way towards establishing a
national long-term biodiversity monitoring and reporting system. However, although
funding for TERN and its programs was committed to June 2016, the most recent TERN
newsletter (February 2015)88 expresses concerns that ‘tide-over’ funds allocated for 2014-
15 have not yet been received, such that “TERN is facing a rapidly advancing funding cliff”.
As long ago as 2008, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists89 highlighted the
importance and the benefits of a nationally standardised system of accounting to guide
management of our natural capital. The group provided a sound overview of the model
that might be used. However, little progress has yet been observed in achieving this
objective.
While government leadership and support is crucial to establishing and maintaining a
national long-term biodiversity monitoring and reporting system, that system must be
informed by sound science and supported by community participation.
The long-running Atlas of Australian Birds90, first established by Birds Australia in 1977 then
reactivated in its current form in 1998, and the more recently established Birdata project
making Birds Australia data available on-line through philanthropic funding are an
outstanding example of what can be achieved and maintained nationally through the
efforts of committed and trained volunteers. In a similar vein, the Atlas of Living
Australia91, while not providing analysis of long-term changes in species and their habitats,
enables community-based volunteers both to contribute to long-term data collection and
to use that data for trend analyses.
The Australian Government, in its Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological
Diversity, relates this Target to Aichi targets 2 (integrating biodiversity values into
development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and their
incorporation into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting) and to Aichi target
19 (on use of knowledge and science base in relation to improving biodiversity status and
trends).
monitoring successful: Insights and lessons from the Long Term Ecological Research Network. Long-Term Ecological Research Network, Australian National University, Canberra; www.ltern.org.au [ accessed January 2015] 88
TERN (February 2015). Director’s Update. February newsletter. www.tern.org.au 89
Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (2008). Accounting for Nature: A model for building the national environmental accounts of Australia. Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, Sydney. 90
Birds Australia. Atlas of Australian Birds and Birdata. http://birdata.com.au/about_atlas.vm 91
Atlas of Living Australia. www.ala.org.au
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
47
Performance rating: Good progress is being made towards the
challenging task of achieving of Target 10. However, a high degree of
caution is required because of lack of evidence of ongoing government
support for the scientific and community-based programs that are making
that progress.
Recommendations:
In the absence of effective long-term monitoring and reporting of biodiversity, Australia lacks a
sound basis for determining trends in biodiversity, an informed basis for identifying spending
priorities in biodiversity conservation, an understanding of returns (both economic and ecological) on
investment, and a sound basis for the adaptive management needed to turn around our current
biodiversity crisis. In reviewing national Target 10, HSI recommends:
63. That the Australian, State and Territory Governments support the
development of science-based, nationally agreed indicators and
monitoring protocols that enable analysis of trends in key biodiversity
indicators at the species, population, ecological community, ecosystem
and threat level, and that scientists, resource managers (including those
in industry), community organisations involved in long-term biodiversity
monitoring, and policy makers all have an opportunity to participate in
the development of these indicators and protocols.
64. That, consistent with the recommendations of the Wentworth Group of
Concerned Scientists, a national system of ‘environmental accounts’,
with parallels in accountability to those applied to the economy, be
developed and implemented in relation to the nation’s biodiversity.
65. That private companies undertaking biodiversity monitoring be
required to contribute their data to the ‘national environmental
accounts’.
66. That funding programs be reshaped to include provision for monitoring
and reporting of outcomes beyond the funded life of a project.
67. That data curation and maintenance of records become a national
priority accessible to all who have an interest in biodiversity.
68. That lessons learned from biodiversity monitoring be made widely
available and their application to changed outcomes documented.
69. That ongoing support be provided both for maintaining long-term
biodiversity monitoring and for community-based programs such as the
Atlas of Living Australia and the Atlas of Australian Birds.
70. That in reviewing national Target 10, full account be taken of:
o Aichi target 2 (integrating biodiversity values into development
and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and their
incorporation into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting);
and
o Aichi target 19 (on use of knowledge and science base in relation
to improving biodiversity status and trends).
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
48
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The commitment to “assess progress in implementing the Strategy, including against the
[interim] national targets”, made within Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy is
both timely and appropriate. As has been discussed earlier in this assessment report, the
existing national targets lack the specificity needed to ensure they provide national
guidance and leadership to all stakeholders in biodiversity conservation. The sub-priorities
for action and the outcomes sought, as identified in the Strategy, provide some additional
guidance. However it is recommended that:
1. The overarching national targets be reviewed to ensure that they meet the
criteria set for ‘SMART’ targets.
2. The revision process include consultation and opportunities for input from all
sectors, particularly the scientific community and those in the community with
a strong understanding of the current and ongoing decline in Australia’s
biodiversity, and the approaches needed to arrest and reverse the crisis.
3. Both the national targets and the outcomes sought be better aligned with the
Aichi Biodiversity targets used to assess progress in implementing the UN’s
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.
4. The Australian Government provide leadership in revising the national targets
and the outcomes and actions that underpin them. That the changes be
achieved working in collaboration with other jurisdictions, scientists, business
and community interests, including non-government organisations with a
demonstrated interest in the conservation of Australia’s biodiversity.
For Target 1: By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in the number of Australians and
public and private organisations who participate in biodiversity conservation
activities.
Increases in the number of Australians and public and private organisations who participate in
biodiversity conservation activities is an important step in turning around the existing biodiversity
crisis in Australia. However, this requires concerted action on a number of fronts, which would be
well served through consideration of the Aichi targets identified to relate to national Target 1 of the
Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.
Recommendations:
5. That in reviewing the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and its
interim Targets, all jurisdictions collaborate to develop more meaningful
national Targets relating to the Outcomes identified in the national Action Plan.
6. That the Target, and the Outcomes sought be more closely related to:
o Aichi target 1 (awareness of the values of biodiversity and the steps that
people can take to conserve and use it sustainably);
o Aichi target 2 (integration of biodiversity values into development
strategies, planning processes, national accounting systems and reporting
systems);
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
49
o Aichi target 4 (Governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have
taken steps to achieve… sustainable production and consumption… ); and
o Aichi Targets 17 to 20 (addressing enhanced implementation through
participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building).
For Target 2: By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in employment and
participation of Indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation.
Increases in employment and participation of Indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation are
culturally appropriate and desirable. The bringing together of traditional knowledge and Western
science is also recognised as making a valuable contribution to conservation land management.
Recommendations:
7. That the focus of the previous Working on Country program on promoting
biodiversity and conservation of cultural resources be reinstated within the
current Jobs, Land and Economy program.
8. That non-government organisations working with Aboriginal people to manage
their country for conservation outcomes, through collaborative use of
appropriate fire regimes, feral animal and weed control and other mechanisms
receive public and private sector support for such work.
9. That in revising national Target 2, greater attention be paid to:
o Aichi target 2 (biodiversity values integrated with development and
poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and being
incorporated in national accounts and reporting systems);
o Aichi target 14 (restoration of essential ecosystem services… taking account
of Indigenous needs); and
o Aichi target 15 (relating to ecosystem resilience and the contribution of
biodiversity to carbon stocks).
For Target 3: By 2015, achieve a doubling of the value of complementary markets
for ecosystem services.
Market-based instruments have a place in achieving sustainable use and management of natural
resources and the ecosystem services they provide. However, as recognised both by Australian
resource economists and by others around the world, their application is complex and unless well
designed may result in perverse outcomes.
Recommendations:
10. That the Australian Government provides leadership in ensuring the successful
application of market-based instruments to the conservation of ecosystem
services by facilitating strategic dialogue within and among governments at
state and national scales.
11. That the dialogue begin from a premise that the relationships between
ecosystem processes, services benefits and beneficiaries provides a way to
inform planning, rather than viewing ecological debates as a contest between
biodiversity and socio-economic benefits.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
50
12. That greater attention be paid to the design of programs providing payments
for ecosystem services, to ensure that they do not result in perverse outcomes
harmful to biodiversity. In this context Australian participation in the work of
the UN Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
should prove beneficial.
13. That where complementary markets are used in conserving biodiversity or
ecosystem services, government commitments be to long-term support for
their implementation through holistic actions.
14. That biobanking and offsetting schemes for the conservation of biodiversity
and ecosystem services not be applied where Matters of National
Environmental Significance are involved.
15. That in redefining Target 3 of the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
greater account be taken of Aichi target 3, which relates to “elimination, phase
out or reform” of “incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity”.
For Target 4: By 2015, achieve a national increase of 600,000km2 of native habitat
managed primarily for biodiversity conservation across, terrestrial, aquatic and
marine environments.
The area conserved within the National Reserve System is an important consideration.
However, consistent with the definitions of IUCN reserve categorisation, and the
recognition that securely managed reserves managed strictly for conservation outcomes
provide an essential backbone to biodiversity conservation, consideration must also be
given to the extent to which the reserved areas provide protection and conservation
management for the full suite of species and ecosystems.
Recommendations:
16. That the Australian Government work in close collaboration with State and
Territory Governments and with non-government conservation organisations
to ensure that the National Reserve System and the Marine Reserve System
become “comprehensive, adequate and representative” of species, ecological
communities and ecosystems, thus meeting long-standing national and
international commitments.
17. That, consistent with the recommendations provided by Taylor, Fitzsimons and
Sattler (2014), the Australian Government increase funding for the National
Reserve System to $170 million per year and that appropriate funding be
provided to enable the buy-out of fisheries operations needed to achieve a
comprehensive, adequate and representative marine and coastal reserve
system.
18. That the National Reserve System, Ecosystems of National Importance,
Wetlands of National Importance and Wild Rivers become Matters of National
Environmental Significance under the provisions of the EPBC Act 1999, thus
requiring the Australian Government Minister for the Environment to approve
any actions that will have, or are likely to have, a significant impact.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
51
19. That the current reviews of marine protected areas be discontinued and
instead the Australian Government embrace the substantial body of science
already amassed in determining the composition of the national marine reserve
system, and ratify a world class network of marine parks
20. That Governments increase funding allocations to enable greater provision of
incentives to landholders adopting permanent conservation covenants on their
properties, with emphasis placed in those parcels of land that are important in
protecting threatened ecological communities and those providing habitat
connectivity across the landscape.
21. That state and local governments provide rate relief to landholders
with in-perpetuity conservation covenants on their properties, thus
providing additional incentives for entry into such agreements to
protect high conservation value remnants, and to provide additional
resources for management of that land.
22. That governments review relevant taxation laws, so that conservation
is properly recognised as a legitimate land use, thus allowing owners
of land managed for conservation outcomes to deduct non-capital
expenditure on conservation works against income, and allowing land
protected by in-perpetuity covenants to be exempt from capital gains
tax on future sale or purchase of that land.
23. That activities such as mining and other activities causing substantial change to
biodiversity values not be permitted on land that is under a permanent
conservation covenant.
24. That in reframing Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Target 4,
greater account be taken of:
o Aichi target 5 (relating to loss, degradation and fragmentation of habitat);
o Aichi target 7 (relating to sustainable management of agriculture,
aquaculture and forestry); and
o Aichi target 11 (relating to conservation of 17% of terrestrial and inland
water and 10% of marine areas through “ecologically representative and
well connected systems of protected areas…”)
For Target 5: By 2015, 1,000km2 of fragmented landscapes and aquatic
systems are being restored to improve ecological connectivity.
That the programs addressing habitat fragmentation are numerous and diverse is appropriate, given
the threats posed by these actions. The structure of relatively natural habitats across the landscape,
the management of those habitats and the governance arrangements in place to support them are
all important.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
52
Recommendations:
25. That a science-based whole-of-landscape approach be taken and
rewarded in planning and managing for biodiversity conservation,
with ‘biodiversity hotspots’, climate refugia and other places of high
biodiversity significance given priority for support.
26. That the objectives of programs such as the National Landcare
Programme, the Twenty Million Trees Programme and the Green
Army Programme be clearly directed to restoration of fragmented
landscapes and that the achievements of funded projects be
measured against these objectives.
27. That a strong Environmental Stewardship program, targeting
remnants of fragmented threatened ecological communities, climate
refugia and landscape connectivity, be established as a high priority
for restoration of fragmented landscapes.
28. That State and Federal laws governing the conservation of biodiversity
and, in particular, native vegetation be retained and strengthened to
ensure that clearing be permitted only where it can be shown to
“maintain or improve” the biodiversity of an area.
29. That, in revisiting Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Target
5 greater account be taken of:
o Aichi target 5 (relating to loss, degradation and fragmentation of
habitat);
o Aichi target 7 (relating to sustainable management of agriculture,
aquaculture and forestry);
o Aichi target 11 (relating to conservation of 17% of terrestrial and
inland water and 10% of marine areas through ‘ecologically
representative and well connected systems of protected areas…”);
Aichi target 14 (ecosystems providing essential services, taking
into account the needs of women, indigenous and local
communities, and the poor and vulnerable); and
o Aichi target 15 (ecosystem resilience through conservation and
restoration of at least 15% of degraded ecosystems).
For Target 6: By 2015, four collaborative continental-scale linkages are established
and managed to improve ecological connectivity.
While some of the major large-scale connectivity projects identified above are progressing
well, with their establishment and management to improve ecological connectivity
continuing apace, others have stumbled – largely due to reduced funding from
governments.
Recommendations:
30. That the Australian Government provide leadership in re-establishing
a national landscape-scale program supporting collaborative
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
53
establishment and ongoing management of continental-scale linkages
to improve ecological connectivity.
31. That enduring institutional arrangements be established to support
the development of collaborative large-scale connectivity projects.
32. That recognised large-scale connectivity corridors be considered for
recognition as a Matter of National Environmental Significance under
the provisions of the EPBC Act 1999.
33. That priorities for the landscape connectivity program be guided by
science, noting the available information on project design, climate
refugia, habitat fragmentation, and ‘biodiversity hotspots’.
34. That the National Reserve System, and its expansion to a more
comprehensive, adequate and representative system for Australian
biodiversity conservation, provide a core of these projects.
35. That those large-scale connectivity projects that have already made
significant progress be supported to progress their achievements to
date.
36. That in reviewing this national Target, greater account be taken of
those aspects of Aichi target 11 which addresses “well connected
systems of protected areas”.
Australia’s Target 6 should also have regard to:
o Aichi target 4, addressing sustainable production and keeping use
of natural resources well within safe ecological limits;
o Aichi target 5 relating to rate of loss of all natural habitats; and
Aichi target 7 relating to sustainable management of agriculture,
aquaculture and forestry ensuring conservation of biodiversity.
For Target 7: By 2015, reduce by at least 10% the impacts of invasive
species on threatened species and ecological communities in terrestrial,
aquatic and marine environments.
While much has been done in recent years to improve Australia’s approach to biosecurity
and to begin to build a more coordinated national system effective across all jurisdictions,
much remains to be done if the impacts of exotic species on biodiversity and ecosystem
services are to be reduced.
Recommendations:
37. The threats posed by invasive species to threatened species,
ecological communities and ecosystems be elevated to a status
equivalent to that given to species impacting on agricultural and other
industries and that programs recognising this need be established and
properly resourced.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
54
38. That, consistent with the recommendations of the Hawke review
(2009)92 of the EPBC Act 1999, invasive species posing a risk to
significant environmental aspects of Australia’s biodiversity, be
specifically addressed under the provisions of the Act, including
triggers to conduct an environmental import risk assessment of both
existing permitted imports and those proposed in the future
39. That risk assessment processes determining permissible entry of new
species to Australia be science-based, taking account of likely
environmental impacts as well as impacts on industry, and that they
be conducted through transparent processes open to public input.
40. That the capacity of local landholders and others in the community to
recognise and report unusual plant and animal species be
strengthened and that such community-based surveillance be
supported by an enhanced network of NRM professionals trained in
the biosecurity pathway.
41. That, as has repeatedly been called for in reviews of invasive species
management and control, the Australian, State and Territory
governments make every effort to better harmonise and build
consistency between their various laws and programs governing
invasive species.
42. That, as the impacts of climate change bring increased likelihood of
relocation and new establishment of some weed species, relevant
members of the scientific community, the NRM sector, rural
landholders and others in the community be made aware of likely
weed spread and alerted to the need for renewed vigilance.
43. That governments at all levels collaborate to ensure that Threat
Abatement Plans are developed and implemented for all invasive-
species related Key Threatening Processes recognised nationally
under the provisions of the EPBC Act 1999.
44. In addressing recommendations to reduce the impacts of invasive
species on threatened species and ecological communities in
terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments, HSI supports the full
suite of recommendations made by the Invasive Species Council in its
September 2014 submission65 to the Senate Inquiry into invasive
species.
45. In reviewing this national Target, full account should be taken of:
o Aichi target 9, in which alien species and pathways are identified
and prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and
measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their
introduction and establishment.
o Aichi target 10 relating to anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs
and other vulnerable ecosystems; and
92
Hawke A (Oct 2009). The Australian Environment Act. Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Report to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
55
o Aichi target 12, relating to prevention of extinction of known
threatened species are also relevant to Australia’s Biodiversity
Conservation Strategy Target 7.
For Target 8: By 2015, nationally agreed science and knowledge
priorities for biodiversity conservation are guiding research activities.
The need for sound, nationally agreed science and knowledge priorities to guide not only
research activities, but also policy and programs for biodiversity conservation, is widely
recognised.
Recommendations:
46. That the six priority directions for the future of Australian ecosystem
science outlined in the Ecosystem Science Long-Term Plan (2014) be
supported by governments, research scientists and the
community.
47. That mechanisms to enhance collaboration between ecosystem
scientists from different disciplines and between ecosystem scientists
and end-users (at policy, program and on-ground levels) be
developed, implemented and supported.
48. That, recognising the long-term nature of many ecological changes,
dedicated long-term funding be committed for ecosystem research.
49. That systematic, continental-scale monitoring essential for ecosystem
variables be established and maintained to identify trends in the
health of our ecosystems.
50. That ecosystem science datasets be professionally archived and made
easily accessible to the broad range of potential end-users who will
benefit from that information.
51. That the science and datasets that underpinned the national
Biodiversity Hotspots program be reviewed and updated as an
important source of information on which to build conservation
programs.
52. That processes be put in place to ensure that ecosystem science is
provided to school students and the wider community in ways that
inspire their knowledge and appreciation of Australia’s ecosystems.
53. That governments, the Ecosystem Science Council and others provide
leadership in ensuring greater collaboration and coordination of
ecosystem science.
54. That government funding programs are established in ways that not
only enable, but also facilitate the formation of partnerships and
collaborations, rather than the current competitively-based funding
models.
55. That community-based research and knowledge initiatives such as the
Atlas of Living Australia, continue to be supported and promoted to
potential users.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
56
56. In reviewing national Target 8, full account be taken of Aichi target 19,
which relates directly to Australia’s Strategy Target 8, addressing the
role of knowledge, science base and technologies into biodiversity
conservation and management.
Aichi target 18, which relates to the integration of Indigenous
knowledge into conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (an
area in which some progress has been made) is also relevant.
For Target 9: By 2015, all jurisdictions will review relevant legislation,
policies and programs to maximise alignment with Australia’s
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.
There is widespread agreement that, despite whatever efforts might be currently being
made by national, state and territory governments, biodiversity conservation and effective
legislative protection in Australia is going backwards. More concerted effort, through
collaborative action by all stakeholders, is required.
Recommendations:
57. That the Australian Government retain its powers to address all
Matters of National Environmental Significance under the EPBC Act,
recognising that:
o Only the Australian Government can deliver on Australia’s
international environmental obligations
o States have an inherent conflict of interest in assessing the
environmental impacts of development proposals in the national
interest, while also seeking to reap short-term economic benefits
from such developments.
o National environmental issues often cross jurisdictional
boundaries and thus need national leadership in determining their
appropriateness.
o States and Territories have already demonstrated a lack of
capacity to appropriately assess major projects.
58. That the Australian Government take a lead in coordinating a review
of existing biodiversity legislation in all jurisdictions, with a view to
better coordinating and harmonising efforts to conserve biodiversity
and ecosystem functions, including the listing of threatened species
and ecological communities, strengthening government obligations,
increasing access to courts for public enforcement, and doing so while
maintaining Commonwealth national legislative oversight.
59. That a revised and updated set of national Targets within the
Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy provide the framework
for a more consistent approach, and that the Aichi targets provide a
basis for this update.
60. That in undertaking this review, all jurisdictions commit to new
generation legislation, directed to improving legislative protection of
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
57
biodiversity based on best available science, taking account of the
likely impacts of climate change on Australia’s biodiversity, and
addressing the cumulative impacts and other systemic failures of
current legislation.
61. That in undertaking this alignment process, greater consideration be
given to sustainable agricultural, fisheries and forestry production in
those areas of the landscape that are not reserved for biodiversity
conservation outcomes.
62. That in seeking to improve the national Targets for biodiversity conservation,
the Australian, State and Territory Governments take account of:
o Aichi target 2 (integration of biodiversity values into development, poverty
reduction and planning processes);
o Aichi target 4 (implementation of plans for sustainable production and
consumption, keeping NRM use well within safe ecological limits); and
o Aichi target 17 (implementation of an effective, participatory and updated
national biodiversity strategy and action plan).
For Target 10: By 2015, establish a national long-term biodiversity
monitoring and reporting system.
In the absence of effective long-term monitoring and reporting of biodiversity, Australia
lacks a sound basis for determining trends in biodiversity, an informed basis for identifying
spending priorities in biodiversity conservation, an understanding of returns (both
economic and ecological) on investment, and a sound basis for the adaptive management
needed to turn around our current biodiversity crisis.
Recommendations:
63. That the Australian, State and Territory Governments support the
development of science-based, nationally agreed indicators and
monitoring protocols that enable analysis of trends in key biodiversity
indicators at the species, population, ecological community,
ecosystem and threat level, and that scientists, resource managers
(including those in industry), community organisations involved in
long-term biodiversity monitoring, and policy makers all have an
opportunity to participate in the development of these indicators and
protocols.
64. That, consistent with the recommendations of the Wentworth Group
of Concerned Scientists, a national system of ‘environmental
accounts’, with parallels in accountability to those applied to the
economy, be developed and implemented in relation to the nation’s
biodiversity.
65. That private companies undertaking biodiversity monitoring be
required to contribute their data to the ‘national environmental
accounts’.
Humane Society International, March 2015: Aust. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Progress Review
58
66. That funding programs be reshaped to include provision for
monitoring and reporting of outcomes beyond the funded life of a
project.
67. That data curation and maintenance of records become a national
priority accessible to all who have an interest in biodiversity.
68. That lessons learned from biodiversity monitoring be made widely
available and their application to changed outcomes documented.
69. That ongoing support be provided both for maintaining long-term
biodiversity monitoring and for community-based programs such as
the Atlas of Living Australia and the Atlas of Australian Birds.
70. That in reviewing national Target 10, full account be taken of:
o Aichi target 2 (integrating biodiversity values into development
and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and their
incorporation into national accounting, as appropriate, and
reporting); and
o Aichi target 19 (on use of knowledge and science base in relation
to improving biodiversity status and trends).