Submission to the Senate Inquiry on Australia’s faunal extinction crisis The adequacy of existing assessment procedures for identifying the conservation status of threatened fauna

National Environmental Science Program Threatened Species Recovery (TSR) Hub The Threatened Species Recovery (TSR) Hub’s research aims to support recovery of terrestrial and freshwater threatened species and biodiversity. Among the authors of this submission are individuals who have devoted decades of their lives to understanding threatened species and the factors that affect them, and worked with many policy-makers, on-ground managers and the community to help conserve these species. The Threatened Species Recovery Hub (TSR Hub) includes a number of research projects aiming to inform or contribute to threatened species listing processes. Representatives from these projects are among the authors of these submissions. Authors: Professor John Woinarski (TSR Hub Theme Leader, Charles Darwin University), Assoc. Professor Sarah Legge (TSR Hub Theme Leader, Australian National University and University of Queensland), Dr Ayesha Tulloch (TSR Hub Research Fellow, University of Sydney and University of Queensland), Chris Sanderson (TSR Hub Researcher, Australian National University and University of Queensland), Professor Stephen Garnett (TSR Hub Theme Leader, Charles Darwin University), Natasha Cadenhead (TSR Hub Research Associate, University of Melbourne), Dr Rachel Morgain (TSR Hub Knowledge Broker, Australian National University) This submission addresses the following terms of reference for the Inquiry:

(j) the adequacy of existing assessment processes for identifying threatened fauna conservation status

Premise of submission

The list of Australia’s threatened species should be justified, up-to-date and appropriately include all Australian species that are threatened with extinction. The list drives funding of conservation and research efforts. Therefore, if the list is not comprehensive, so must our approach to conserving species be inadequate. An accurate, scientifically robust list provides a strong foundation for the prevention of extinction, and the recovery, of Australia’s threatened species.

Key Issues

• The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 appropriately stipulates that assessment of the conservation status of Australia’s biodiversity is determined on the basis of independent scientific recommendations. • The assessment process is rigorous and robust and allows for public comment; this ensures confidence in the integrity of the list. • The Common Assessment Method (CAM) – harmonising assessments and listing processes across states and territories – is a welcome initiative and is helping render national listing more efficient and reducing the confusing mish-mash of assessment protocols and lists across Australian jurisdictions. • The Species Expert Assessment Plan (SEAP) process is also a welcome initiative to increase efficiency in the listing process and to increase the harmonisation of assessments and listing at national and international levels. The use of this process should be expanded. • The assessment process is resource-hungry and strongly evidentiary, and hence largely precludes much of the Australian biota that is poorly known but imperilled (see also response to Term of Reference (i)). As a result, the threatened species list is taxonomically biased towards better

Page 1 of 7 known and iconic taxonomic groups and better known regions. The conservation outlook for poorly-known but imperilled species is consequently jeopardised. • The current Commonwealth assessment process does not provide for an obligatory periodic review of the conservation status of listed species (i.e. for de-listing, down-listing or up-listing). This may result in ossification of the list, and hence reduced public confidence in its validity. • The current Commonwealth assessment process does not provide for an emergency listing process. This may be particularly critical where species experience sudden, catastrophic declines, or where a new species discovered during an environmental impact assessment could be at risk from the proposed development.

Implications

J1. Retaining the core elements of the current listing process, which is rigorous and has integrity. J2. Retaining the Common Assessment Method, which is helping to overcome much of the inconsistency in listing across Australian states and territories, thus delivering considerable efficiencies in the assessment and listing process. J3. Retaining, expanding and resourcing the Species Expert Assessment Plan, will deliver benefits to threatened species: it is helping to overcome inconsistencies in listing at national and international levels, and delivering considerable efficiencies in the assessment and listing process. J4. Consider amendments to legislation so that the process of listing and delisting of species (and ecological communities) aligns even more closely with IUCN standards (e.g. by including a Data Deficient category), whilst retaining the category ‘Conservation Dependent’ (a category no longer used by the IUCN) to allow for the conservation management of fish species that are eligible for listing as threatened but are managed effectively under approved plans. a. Consider amendments to the legislation to include a provision for emergency listing of species. J5. Institute and resource a formal process for periodic review for all threatened species listings under the EPBC Act (see also our Recommendation A3 in a complementary submission relating to Term of Reference (a)). J1. There is an opportunity to recognise and redress the severe taxonomic bias in listings of threatened species under the EPBC Act, where poorly known but imperilled species are largely neglected (i.e. unlikely to be listed), and hence likely to suffer conservation detriment under the current process. Options to redress this problem include: a. reduction in the evidentiary burden in assessments, through broader application of the precautionary principle and inference in assessment of conservation status; b. introducion of new conservation categories for species that are likely to be imperilled but for which the evidence base is sparse (e.g. a Data Deficient category as used by the IUCN and some Australian jurisdictions; or a Short-Range Endemic category, as used by the Western Australian government); c. increased use of existing measures likely to provide some indirect conservation benefit to poorly known but imperilled species (such as increase in the number and comprehensiveness of listings of threatened ecological communities and increases in the number and comprehensiveness of listings of Key Threatening Processes); and/or d. strategic investment in seeking more evidence about poorly known species that may be imperilled (e.g. through targeted survey of poorly-known species-groups and areas, and increased support for taxonomic research in poorly-known groups).

Page 2 of 7

Discussion

Value and effectiveness of aspects of the current listing provisions

The list of Australia’s threatened species provides a robust foundation for recovery efforts and the application of regulatory protections. The list should therefore be justified, up-to-date and appropriately include all Australian species that are threatened with extinction. If the list is not comprehensive, so must our approach to conserving species be inadequate. An accurate, scientifically robust list thus provides a strong foundation for the prevention of extinction, and the recovery, of Australia’s threatened species.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 appropriately stipulates that assessment of the conservation status of Australia’s biodiversity (i.e. for listing as threatened under the Act) is determined on the basis of independent scientific recommendations from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. The assessment process is rigorous and robust and allows for public comment.

The Act closely prescribes the criteria and thresholds to be used; these are similar but not identical to the best-practice standards used by the IUCN (IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee 2016), allowing international comparisons and reporting (e.g. to the CBD). This compatibility with international standards is important and should be retained. Some small but significant points of difference between the IUCN listing assessment and EPBC listing assessment (e.g. acceptance of the ‘D2’ criterion for species with highly restricted distributions) should be removed when the EPBC Act is revised. However, the Conservation Dependent category, which is no longer used by IUCN, should be retained to support the conservation management of fish species that are affected by a managed fishery but may otherwise be eligible for listing as threatened.

The recently-established Common Assessment Method (CAM) – harmonising assessments and listing processes across states and territories – is a welcome initiative that will help render national listing more efficient and reduce the confusing mish-mash of assessment protocols and lists across Australian jurisdictions.

The Intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Commonwealth and all of the states and territories except South Australia for the Common Assessment Method (CAM MoU) is supporting a consistent national scientific approach to assessing and listing threatened species across the Australian jurisdictions. Using the Common Assessment Method, species are assessed using the EPBC-relevant IUCN criteria and thresholds. When an Australian jurisdiction undertakes an assessment using the CAM, the outcome of that assessment may be adopted by other states and territories where the species occurs, as well as the Australian Government (under the EPBC Act). This approach means that a species is only assessed once and is listed in the same ‘nationally threatened’ category across all relevant jurisdictions.

Page 3 of 7 The CAM has required legislative changes in most jurisdictions to harmonise listing criteria and thresholds (to largely align with IUCN standards). The legislative modifications to the EPBC Act required to fully align the process for listing and delisting species with the IUCN standards are relatively minor and should be introduced when the Act is revised. These revisions should reduce stakeholder confusion over listings, because IUCN, Commonwealth and state and territory listings should be similar for all species endemic to Australia. The CAM removes double (or even triple) assessment processes, and thus reduces the assessment burden across governments, and reduces the regulatory burden for agriculture and other sectors of the community.

The Species Expert Assessment Plan (SEAP) process is also a welcome initiative to increase efficiency in the listing process and harmonise assessments at national and international levels.

The Species Expert Assessment Plan process has allowed for recent comprehensive assessment (and re-assessment) by the community of experts of some large components of Australian biodiversity, notably including for birds (Garnett et al. 2011) and mammals (Woinarski et al. 2014), with current assessments for frogs and reptiles and forthcoming assessments for eucalypts and Proteaceae. The comprehensive and systematic assessment for most of these taxonomic groups has allowed for efficient collaborations with the IUCN Red List assessment process. The SEAP process could be usefully expanded and applied across other major taxonomic groups.

Areas for improvement in the listing process

The assessment process for listing species is resource-hungry and strongly evidentiary, and hence largely precludes much of the Australian biota that is poorly known but imperilled. As a consequence the threatened species listing is taxonomically biased.

The evidentiary stipulations within the listing process inevitably lead to greater representation of better known and iconic taxonomic groups (notably birds and mammals) and species from better known regions, but insufficient representation of many other groups such as invertebrates (Walsh et al. 2012).

This bias becomes a vicious cycle: poorly known but imperilled species have low profile in the community so are unlikely to be publicly nominated for assessment. If they are considered for assessment, there is likely to be insufficient information about their status to meet the evidentiary standards for meeting eligibility criteria. Then, if they are not listed as threatened, they are not accorded any priority for conservation protection or monitoring, and hence they are likely to continue to decline but because they are not listed they are also not monitored, so no further information is collected as they continue to decline.

As an example of the magnitude of the problem of taxonomic bias, we have recently reviewed the endemic biodiversity of Christmas Island (J. Woinarski, D. James, P. Green, W. Humphreys, unpubl.). Of the island’s 14 endemic terrestrial vertebrate species, 12 are listed as threatened or extinct under

Page 4 of 7 the EPBC Act, and a further five endemic subspecies of terrestrial vertebrate are so listed. In contrast, there are more than 250 endemic invertebrate species but none is listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, although many of these species have not been reported for at least 100 years and many of these endemic invertebrate species are likely to have been even more severely affected than the endemic vertebrates by some of the threats that have led to the listing of the vertebrates (e.g. infestations of yellow crazy ants and the broad-scale treatment of these with insecticides). It is highly likely that most of these endemic invertebrates would meet the criteria for listing as threatened (or even extinct) if more information was known about them. But because there is so little information about them, they are not so listed, and hence not subject to any consideration in such exercises as spatial conservation planning or threat management, and the extent of biodiversity decline and loss on the island is vastly under-estimated. This situation of extreme taxonomic bias in the assessment and listing of conservation status is likely to be repeated across much of Australia.

A recent NESP TSR Hub project considered mechanisms to redress the insufficient inclusion of poorly-known species in the EPBC Act assessment, listing and recovery processes. One potential solution to this problem is to follow IUCN practice and allow for a Data Deficient category in listing under the EPBC Act. Species accorded such status may then be prioritised for research aimed at clarifying their conservation status – e.g. through survey to provide better evidence about their distribution, population size or population trends. A Data Deficient category could also be used in a similar fashion to the Priority categorisation system from Western Australia (Department of Parks & Wildlife 2017), to require proponents of developments that may affect those species to conduct research and monitoring to improve our knowledge of their status as a condition of approval for their project.

Other options for the enhanced conservation of poorly known but imperilled species include: • the uptake to the EPBC Act of a conservation status comparable to the Short-Range Endemic categorisation used in Western Australia (Environmental Protection Authority 2009; Harvey et al. 2011), which would protect poorly-known species thought to have small ranges; • more application of the precautionary principle (as supported by the EPBC Act at s.3A(b)) in assessments of the conservation status of species, particularly of poorly-known species that are likely to be imperilled; • revisions to broader conservation measure that improve the conservation outlook for many species (listed, data deficient, or unlisted), such as: o Increase the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of listing threatened ecological communities; o Increase the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of listing of Key Threatening Processes, and in particular – preparing and implementing Threat Abatement Plans for them; o Increase application of other conservation planning and protection approaches, such as regional planning; o Increase the comprehensiveness and adequacy of the National Reserve System. These measures are not mutually exclusive; application of some or all of these measures could be taken as a package to improve the conservation outlook of poorly known but imperilled species.

Page 5 of 7 In addition, resourcing should be provided for targeted surveys and research for poorly-known regions and poorly-known groups of species (see response to Term(i)), such as the Bush Blitz program (Lambkin and Bartlett 2011; Preece et al. 2015). To facilitate resource allocation, regions and species may be prioritised based on benefits of knowledge improvement and costs of improving that knowledge using readily available tools such as Value-of-Information or the Project Prioritisation Protocol (Joseph et al. 2009, Runge et al. 2011).

The current Commonwealth assessment process does not provide for an obligatory periodic review of the conservation status of listed species (i.e. for de-listing, down-listing or up-listing). This may result in ossification of the list, and hence reduced public confidence in its validity.

Much of the current complement of species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act derived from transfer of previous listings (under the Endangered Species Act) in 1999-2000, notwithstanding that listing under that previous Act were based on different eligibility criteria. Hence, there are species on the current list that probably should not be listed (or should be listed in a different category), and many species not on the current list that should be listed. One option to retain the currency of the listing, and hence help maintain public confidence in its validity, is to institute and resource a process for the list to undergo periodic comprehensive review. This review process is practised in some jurisdictions (e.g. the Northern Territory).

The current Commonwealth assessment process does not provide for an emergency listing process. This may be particularly critical where species experience sudden, catastrophic declines, or where a new species discovered during an environmental impact assessment could be at risk from the proposed development.

In 2015, the Bellinger River Snapping Turtle, Myuchelys georgesi, experienced an up to 90% loss of population in < 1 year due to disease. While a recovery program has been established and hopefully this species will recover successfully, this rapid change in the species’ actual status took from February 2015 until December 2016 to result in a change in formal conservation status under the EPBC Act (Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2016), during which time the Commonwealth would have been unable to legally use the turtle’s proposed Critically Endangered status in considering applications for developments that would impact them. Similarly, a species of snake recently discovered during an environmental impact assessment on a proposed bauxite mine on Cape York Peninsula is likely to already be highly threatened by development in the area, particularly if it proves to occur only in a small area (Brown 2018). And yet, it may take up to two years to have this species assessed and listed by the current process, by which time the statutory requirement on the Commonwealth to approve or reject the development proposal will be long expired. Implementing an emergency listing process similar to that under the NSW Biodiversity and Conservation Act 2016, or that used under the US Endangered Species Act 1973, would help address this issue. Issues relating to evidence requirements around emergency listing will need to be worked through.

Page 6 of 7

References

Brown, Alison (2018, July 16) Newly discovered venomous snake in far north Queensland could be under threat. Sydney Morning Herald. Online at: https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/newly-discovered-venomous-snake- in-far-north-queensland-could-be-under-threat-20180716-p4zrt3.html Deaprtment of Parks & Wildlife (2017) Conservation Codes For Western Australian Flora and Fauna. Government of Western Australia. Available at: https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/documents/plants-animals/threatened- species/Listings/conservation_code_definitions.pdf Environmental Protection Authority (2009) 'Guidance for the assessment of environmental factors (in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986). Sampling of short range endemic invertebrate fauna for environmental impact assessment in Western Australia.' Environmental Protection Authority, Perth. Garnett ST, Szabo J, Dutson G (2011) 'The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010.' CSIRO, Melbourne. Harvey MS, Rix MG, Framenau VW, Hamilton ZR, Johnson MS, Teale RJ, Humphreys G, Humphreys WF (2011) Protecting the innocent: studying short-range endemic taxa enhances conservation outcomes. Invertebrate Systematics 25, 1-10. IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee (2016) 'Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 12.' Gland, Switzerland. Joseph LN, Maloney RF, Possingham HP (2009) Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conservation Biology 23, 328-38. Lambkin CL, Bartlett JS (2011) Bush Blitz aids description of three new species and a new genus of Australian beeflies (Diptera, Bombyliidae, Exoprosopini). ZooKeys 150, 231-280. Runge MC, Converse SJ, Lyons JE. (2011) Which uncertainty? Using expert elicitation and expected value of information to design an adaptive program. Biological Conservation 144, 1214-23. Preece M, Harding J, West JG (2015) Bush Blitz: journeys of discovery in the Australian outback. Australian Systematic Botany 27, 325-332. Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2016) Wollumbinia georgesi (Bellinger River snapping turtle) Conservation Advice. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/86072- conservation-advice-07122016.pdf Walsh JC, Watson JEM, Bottrill MC, Joseph LN, Possingham HP (2012) Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: an Australian case study. Oryx 47, 131-143. Woinarski JCZ, Burbidge AA, Harrison PL (2014) 'The Action Plan for Australian Mammals 2012.' (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne)

Page 7 of 7