Australia’s iodiversity onservation Strategy · Australia’s iodiversity onservation Strategy ... conference held in South Korea in 2014, ... down to meet the Aichi Targets ^only

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.


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.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/06/un-biodiversity-report-failure-m

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/06/un-biodiversity-report-failure-m


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.


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.


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.


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.

http://www.environment.gov.au/


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].

http://www.cbd.int/sp/elements/default.shtml


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.


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.


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]



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.


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).


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.


http://www.dpmc.gov.au/indigenous-affairs/about/jobs-land-and-economy


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).


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.


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.


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.


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”.


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 Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database – CAPAD (2014). www.environment.gov.au


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.

http://www.worldparkscongress.org/


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]

http://www.environment.gov.au/marinereservesreview/about


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.


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…”)


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


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].

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/conservation/hotspots/national-biodiversity-hotspots


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.

http://www.nrm.gov.au/


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.


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),


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).


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


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.


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

http://www.tasland.org.au/index.php/download_file/view/1011/126/


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 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]


http://www.nrm.gov.au/national/20-million-trees

http://www.nrm.gov.au/national/20-million-trees/competitive



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.


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.


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


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.

http://www.cabi.org/cabreviews


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.


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


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.


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.


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



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



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.


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]

http://www.scienceaandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/news/budget-cuts-and-changes/


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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).


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



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



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

http://www.ltern.org.au/


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).


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);


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.


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.


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);


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.


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);


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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’.


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).

Documents

Australia’s iodiversity onservation Strategy · Australia’s iodiversity onservation Strategy ... conference held in South Korea in 2014, ... down to meet the Aichi Targets ^only