State of the Environment

2006

Biodiversity

Theme commentary
Steven Cork, Land & Water Australia and CSIRO
Paul Sattler, Paul Sattler Eco-consulting Pty Ltd
Jason Alexandra, Alexandra and Associates Pty Ltd
prepared for the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee, 2006

Responses

Effective conservation of biodiversity requires the development and implementation of a portfolio of responses that address the issues in strategic, cost effective and proactive ways across a range of scales. It is not within the scope of this commentary to individually assess all of the many valuable and varied responses made by individuals, community groups, institutions, and local and state governments.

Species recovery planning

Some species have shown greater recovery  than others. While it is important to assess progress with respect to listing and the development, implementation and success of recovery plans, the amount of information available is far too limited to allow us to draw specific conclusions. It is concerning that such information is not available.

Australia’s parks and other protected areas

Australia’s national parks and other protected areas  extend across 10.5 per cent of the terrestrial area of Australia (Commonwealth of Australia 2003; Table 7) and remain its premier investment in protecting the nation’s biodiversity. This is consistent with the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity, which identifies protected areas as the central strategy integrated with sympathetic management of all other areas (Commonwealth of Australia 1996). In many bioregions, the ongoing pressures on biodiversity means that protected areas assume even greater importance to provide a ‘safety net’ for the protection of a representative sample of regional biodiversity.

Australia ranks sixteenth out of 30 OECD countries in terms of the relative extent of protected areas (UNEP WCMC 2003). From 1997 to 2004, Australia’s terrestrial protected areas increased by approximately 21 million hectares and now extend across almost 81 million hectares of Australia. This increase consisted of eight million hectares in parks and reserves (IUCN reserve categories I to IV) and 13 million hectares in other protected areas (IUCN categories V to VI), principally being Indigenous Protected Areas in Western and South Australia (Commonwealth of Australia 2003).

Table 15: Australian Terrestrial Protected Areas 1997–2004
1997 2000 2002 2004
Number Area (ha) Number Area (ha) Number Area (ha) Number Area (ha)
5 645 59 752 783 5 251 61 438 611 6 755 77 461 951 7 720 80 895 099

Source: DEH (2005)

Figure 8: Percentage of each IBRA reserved under the National Reserve System

Figure 8: Percentage of each IBRA reserved under the National Reserve System

Source: NLWRA (2002)

Australia is committed to achieving a representative reserve system (Commonwealth of Australia 2001). The first assessment of how representative Australia’s terrestrial protected areas system is in sampling biodiversity across each bioregion was carried out by the National Land and Water Resources Audit (NLWRA 2002). This assessment found that 67 per cent of major terrestrial ecosystems were represented in parks and reserves (IUCN reserve categories I to IV). Other protected areas such as multiple-use reserves, Indigenous Protected Areas, and covenants on private lands (IUCN categories V to VI) have five per cent of terrestrial ecosystems represented in an estate covering approximately three per cent of Australia. The NLWRA (2002) analysis shows that the terrestrial protected area system is poorly representative of the biodiversity of nearly half (42) of Australia’s 85 bioregions (Figure 8). Because opportunities to secure a fully representative protected area system have disappeared or are declining in many regions, there is an urgent need to develop and implement a strategic plan for expanding Australia’s protected areas into those bioregions where we do not have a comprehensive or representative reserve system (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Bioregional priorities for consolidating Australia’s terrestrial protected area system

Figure 9: Bioregional priorities for consolidating Australia's terrestrial protected area system'

Source: NLWRA (2002)

Increasingly, non-government organisations such as the Australian Bush Heritage Fund, the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Earth Sanctuaries, and Birds Australia are purchasing and managing lands for conservation (Figgis 2004). In the last ten years, these organisations have acquired more than one million hectares and, while this effort may be valuable, it can only represent a relatively small component of the total reservation effort required for such a large continent with a small philanthropic base.

In 2001, a target was agreed by the Australian Government and five state governments (National Objective and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation 2001–2005):

By 2005, a representative sample of each bioregion … is protected within the National Reserve System or network of Indigenous Protected Areas or as private land managed for conservation under a conservation agreement. (Commonwealth of Australia 2001)

This target has not been met, and there has been declining or limited funding to build a representative protected area system through the Australian Government’s National Reserve System Program and by a number of state and territory jurisdictions during the past five years (Sattler and Glanznig in press).

Of particular concern is the lack of ecological monitoring of the protected area system to assess the effectiveness of management and to guide management decisions. This is highlighted by the Audit’s assessment and subsequent data, which has shown that the majority (57 per cent) of protected areas are managed only to a fair standard across Australia with permanent resource degradation possibly occurring in 19 per cent (Sattler 2005 and Table 8). Some emerging data suggest that, especially for habitat that requires fire regimes that are difficult to manage in reserves, conservation might require more integrated off- and on-reserve management (Andersen et al 2005).

Table 16: An assessment of the standard of management in terrestrial protected areas within Australia’s bioregions
Management standard* Number (and per cent) of bioregions
Very good 7 (9%)
Good 12 (15%)
Fair 47 (57%)
Poor 16 (19%)

* Protected Area Management Classes: Very good (for example, a high proportion of protected areas has management plans; ecological monitoring programmes in place and key biodiversity issues are being addressed); Good (for example, major biodiversity issues effectively managed); Fair (for example, biodiversity values and or management issues are poorly identified; resource degradation is occurring through retrievable); Poor (for example, high visitor impacts or other threatening processes that are not managed and are leading to permanent resource degradation in a number of parks)

Source: Sattler (2005)

Major initiatives across landscapes

Since SoE2001, a major initiative for the protection of Australia’s biodiversity at a national scale has been the NHT, phases one and two. NAP, launched in 2001, also is intended to address the protection of biodiversity within an integrated approach to natural resource management, with Australian Government funding matched by the states and territories. Other major achievements, discussed previously, are the actions taken by most jurisdictions during recent years to limit vegetation clearing .

In 2003, the Council of Australian Governments  (COAG) agreed to a National Water Initiative  that aims to implement environmental flow regimes at a whole-of-basin, aquifer or catchment scale. For the Murray River there was a historic commitment of significant funding of $500 million to return 500 gigalitres of environmental flow for iconic sites along the river including the Barmah forest and the Coroong. Of particular note has been the recent and growing acceptance by governments and the community of the need for water reform in Australia.

Measuring progress

The new NHT and NAP initiatives have seen the largest investment ever made in integrating biodiversity conservation within natural resource management processes. New arrangements have been put in place with regional natural resource management bodies to develop and implement management plans that incorporate biodiversity targets and objectives. The Australian, state and territory governments have established bilateral agreements that seek land and water reforms through better regional planning and investment strategies.

All stakeholders in biodiversity conservation want to see these investments made in the most effective and efficient ways possible. A mid-term review of the first phase of NHT concluded that good progress was being made on involving people in, and improving institutional arrangements for, biodiversity conservation (Centre for International Economics, CSIRO, and Resource Policy and Management 1999). It raised concerns, however, about progress on environmental protection (projects at too small a scale to have much impact) and sustainable production (few projects addressing this issue). The framework for extension of the NHT proposed to address these issues through various measures, including: a specific focus on broadscale land clearing; development and application of appropriate economic and market-based measures to support the conservation of terrestrial native biodiversity; and improved measures to conserve and enhance remnant native vegetation, encourage more sustainable management of rangeland ecosystems, and integrate multiple objectives including biodiversity conservation, salinity mitigation, greenhouse gas abatement, improved land stability and enhanced water quality (Environment Australia and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Australia 2002).

A further assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the NHT is currently underway but the results were not available at the time that this commentary was written. In 2002, a major independent report to the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council stressed the need for rigorous methods for determining conservation priorities and for assessment of the cost effectiveness of conservation investments (PMSEIC 2002). This report suggested that in the past programmes like the NHT, the National Reserve System, the NAP, and the National Water Reform Framework have sometimes struggled to achieve enough focus on the underlying causes of biodiversity decline. It recommended investment in four areas in particular that are likely to return greatest impact:

As discussed previously in this commentary, action has been taken by Australian and state governments to address each of these areas. Concerns have been raised about whether enough is being invested, particularly in excluding invasive species (Australian Biosecurity Group 2005) and reversing the impacts of past land clearing. These concerns underline the importance of assessing the past and likely future effectiveness of the approaches taken and strategic investment where there is the feasibility of positive outcomes for defined biodiversity priorities.

NLWRA (2002) concluded that, in nearly half of Australia, there were significant impediments to achieving biodiversity outcomes, in terms of extent of landscape degradation, socio-economic factors, and regional and community capacity. Conservation measures are well integrated into production systems in only 1.5 per cent of Australia, with natural resource management actions achieving some biodiversity conservation outcomes in only a further 21 per cent of the country. Addressing many issues requiring structural adjustment or the establishment of new market mechanisms may exceed the capacity of local or regional bodies because these issues require whole-of-government and often industry-wide solutions (NLWRA 2002).

A set of national objectives and targets for biodiversity have been agreed to by the Australian, state and territory governments (with the exception of Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory) and form a basis for implementing the goals of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (Commonwealth of Australia 1996). A recent assessment concluded that 52 per cent of the 29 targets reviewed will not be met in the designated timeframe and that progress on a further ten per cent could not be determined (Griffin NRM 2004). Mostly, the targets met have been those related to policy, regulations or plans rather than the achievement of biodiversity objectives.

Investment in review and improvement

Best practice in environmental policy and management requires that adequate investment be made in reviewing the adequacy of legislation, policy, planning and progress, and taking action to improve processes where necessary. This is especially important with respect to biodiversity conservation in Australia given the large amount being invested, the ambitious objectives being pursued, and the concerning state of the resource. In this context, monitoring needs to be more than just measuring trends; it needs to be incorporated into an experimental learning framework where it is telling us how different strategies perform (Possingham 2000; Possingham et al 2001). Adoption of adaptive management approaches that systematically monitor and learn about the environment (Holling 1978) is increasingly being recognised as a critically important component of Australian natural resource management (for example, ALGA 1997a,b; Dore and Woodhill 1998; VCMC 2002; EHMP 2004).

A key requirement to monitor changes in resource condition is the establishment of targets and identification of suitable indicators. Accordingly, the Australian Government has made a considerable investment in the development of various natural resource indicators and the establishment of monitoring, evaluation and reporting processes for regional natural resource management groups. However, the adoption of indicators by regional bodies to report natural resource condition trends has proved problematic, with trials identifying the lack of data and suitable methodology for their practical application, the inappropriateness of indicators and their relevance to the level of reporting required.

There exists concern over the lack of technical capacity at a regional level for monitoring and making informed assessment of resource condition changes, and the lack of a framework to synthesise the results of monitoring (ALGA 2005). The development of a robust monitoring and evaluation systems will require greater cooperative state and territory arrangements, with regional bodies and the linking to existing biodiversity monitoring programmes being conducted by conservation agencies.

A major concern is the limited long-term ecological research and monitoring in Australia , which could be used to benchmark condition and monitor change over decades. This is especially significant in the context of the pervasive pressures and their insidious impacts on biodiversity discussed above.

National Land and Water Resources Audit

A $30 million, five-year programme establishing the National Land and Water Resources Audit was concluded in 2002, with the completion of a series of studies on the nation’s land, water and biodiversity. One of the studies, Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment (NLWRA 2002), established a successful partnership with all states and territories and, for the first time, collated information on biodiversity at a range of levels from species to landscapes for each bioregion and subregion. This enabled a comprehensive picture to be developed at a national level drawing upon information collated for Australia’s 85 bioregions and 384 subregions. This assessment model also has assisted a number of jurisdictions in taking a broader approach to regional biodiversity management.

The authors of this commentary believe that it is highly desirable that the systematic work carried out in the first biodiversity assessment be built upon and extended to further quantify the assessment of the condition and trend of biodiversity and the effectiveness of policy initiatives. This is important, because there is no comparable process in place that can report on a range of biodiversity assets at a scale useful for regional planning and that can then be collated for the whole continent.

Cost-effective approaches for biodiversity conservation

Targeted strategies are required that focus on maximising conservation return. In some instances, this could warrant a shift away from iconic issues to more threatened parts of the landscape (for example eucalypt woodlands), or where more significant biodiversity gains might be made from tailoring investment to address specific bioregional priorities such as preventative strategies. Considerable conservation effort will continue to be needed in degraded landscapes, and this will mean planning investment for multiple natural resource management returns that include the recovery of biodiversity.

Figure 10: Recovery opportunities for threatened species and ecosystems) Figure 10: Recovery opportunities for threatened species and ecosystems)

Source: NLWRA (2002)

The Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment (Figure 10) found that modest investment could lead to significant recovery of threatened species and ecosystems in northern Australia and across central Australia. In nearly half of Australia, however, significant constraints to recovery were identified owing to the level of landscape and habitat degradation, resource constraints and limited regional and community capacity. Cost-effectiveness analysis should be a key consideration in designing major investment strategies (NLWRA 2002, p. 138).

A more tailored approach to (bio)regional planning

Since 2001, Australia has made a large investment in a regional delivery model for conservation and integrated natural resource management. While this model has the potential to address biodiversity and other environmental issues at appropriate scales of time and space, there are several challenges to its effective implementation. Many people living in regions are focused on local issues, and there is often a lack of understanding of regional or national biodiversity issues. There is little assessment made of the cost effectiveness of proposed responses. Political, social, administrative and ecological boundaries do not overlap and this often confounds conservation actions (Saunders and Briggs 2002, Wild River 2006).

There is a need, therefore, for conservation strategies that consider the particular biodiversity issues of different bioregions integrated with other natural resource management considerations as part of a regional delivery framework. Such planning requires sufficient technical capacity to clearly identify biodiversity priorities, assess opportunities for cost-effective and preventative actions, and define clear outcomes for investment. This capacity seems to be in short supply. Comprehensive bioregional conservation strategies should develop an integrated mix of major conservation measures such as protected area consolidation, species and ecosystem recovery and natural resource management actions that include threat abatement measures.

Bioregional conservation planning is an explicit provision within the EPBC Act, which could be used to facilitate a cooperative planning process with the involvement of state and regional bodies.

This approach of building on the current regional investment initiatives with tailored responses for all of Australia’s 85 bioregions aligns with the proposed National Biodiversity Initiative (National Biodiversity Alliance 2004).

Incentives for protecting biodiversity

The period since SoE2001 has seen substantial activity by the Australian, state and territory governments, as well as some industry and community groups, in exploring new incentive schemes  and market-based mechanisms to achieve biodiversity outcomes (Cutbush 2006). Examples include:

In October 2003, the Australian Government announced 15 national biodiversity hotspots: areas that are rich in plant and animal species and under immediate threat from impacts such as land clearing, development pressures or, salinity. It also announced funding of $36 million for enhancing active conservation management in these areas. This is a welcome programme that will include incentives in one form or another, but should be integrated with other state biodiversity conservation initiatives.

In the past, Australia has explored a range of ways to achieve better land management—ranging from reliance on voluntary measures or altruism to achieve conservation on private land, to legislative measures to establish a duty-of-care that matches community expectations. Two notable approaches that have emerged in this state of the environment reporting period are: the Vegetation Incentive Program in Queensland, which provides additional incentives for protecting regrowth outside the standard established by legislation, and provision for financial incentives for better management of native vegetation associated with legislative reforms in New South Wales, supported by a decision-support tool (Property Vegetation Plan Developer) that considers salinity, water quality, soil degradation, biodiversity, threatened species and invasive native plant species.

Most of the incentive schemes are at early stages of development and, given the growing emphasis on market-based and stewardship approaches to managing biodiversity, rigorous assessments of their performance in meeting biodiversity objectives along with evaluation of other options is required.

Conclusions

As knowledge of Australia’s ecosystems improves so does the understanding of the scale of the management challenges. Proactive and anticipatory responses that address biodiversity conservation priorities in advance of serious decline are needed if national and regional goals are to be met.

This reporting period (2001 to 2006) has seen the emergence of several major initiatives by governments, as well as greatly increased involvement of communities in biodiversity conservation. While these initiatives address many of the issues raised as concerns in the past, their effectiveness has yet to be assessed. Early signs suggest that progress is good with respect to processes, but slower than planned with respect to outcomes for biodiversity that could take decades, if not centuries, to manifest themselves.

These initiatives provide a base on which to build, but more is needed to stem the decline in biodiversity and bring about recovery. The authors of this commentary suggest that a substantially funded national approach to biodiversity conservation is needed, which takes a range of approaches tailored to meet the different needs of different bioregions and includes the following important components: